The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: Crunch on February 03, 2019, 12:01:02 PM

Title: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on February 03, 2019, 12:01:02 PM
Unless you’re living in a cave, you know Jussie had a tough week.  The guy, deep in MAGA country, you know - Chicago, went out on a Subway run at 2 AM.A couple of Trump supporters recognized him and, shouting racist and homophobic slurs, informed Jussie that he was in MAGA country and viciously beat him. Jussie tells us he fought back but ultimately they ended the brutal atrack by wrapping a noose around his neck and dousing him in a unknown chemical (bleach?).

The crowd went wild. Outrage, wailing, gnashing of teeth.

Do you believe this actually happened? I’m not sure.

Turns out this section of deep red MAGA country is blanketed with video surveillance cameras. The police have Jussie walking to Subway and back except for a slightly sub 60 second gap. They can’t find anyone else on camera. There were a couple of “persons of interest” identified but the timeline puts them some distance away, 30 minutes prior to the attack, walking away from the area. At best, they could have seen something.

Jussie says he was on the phone with his manager at the time of the attack. CPD says he hasn’t let them examine his phone (Jussie also insisted they turn off body cams before he’d speak to police). During this brutal attack, Jussie managed to keep both his phone and sandwich and went on home. The police were notified about 40 minutes later. When they showed up, Jussie still had the rope around his neck. That’s really weird.

Do we really believe a couple of MAGA guys were cruising around at 2 AM  in the -20 temps of Chicago with rope and chemical products somehow recognized Jussie and managed to maneuver him into the one blind spot in video coverage to attack him, all the while avoiding ever being seen on video entering or leaving the area? Come on, really?

I guess the big question is, did Jussie eat that sandwich and, if so, when?
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDeamon on February 03, 2019, 01:25:36 PM
I was given to understand the "unknown chemical" was still on has face as well upon the police arriving, or maybe he washed that off upon getting home and that's why it remains "unknown" although I'd think residue could have possibly been found on his (outer) clothing. But the whole "Called 40 minutes later raises questions in that regard, if it was bleach, and he hadn't washed it off, I'd think he'd have chemical burns from it(which would make me wonder why he didn't wash it off, but then leaves open questions about the rope around his neck).

Refusal to turn over his phone is also interesting, although I guess they can request phone records instead.

It is interesting to also learn his attackers managed to completely evade the numerous security cameras in the area.

Maybe they doused him in vinegar instead?
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on February 03, 2019, 01:36:40 PM
It is interesting to also learn his attackers managed to completely evade the numerous security cameras in the area.

It really is. As I understand it, the police can track Jussie on video all the way from his apartment to subway and back but for a little less than a minute. Of all the holes in this story, and there are many, this is one of the biggest.

At this rate, it’s probably worth asking where Ralph Northam was during this “attack”.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDeamon on February 03, 2019, 03:31:12 PM
It is interesting to also learn his attackers managed to completely evade the numerous security cameras in the area.

It really is. As I understand it, the police can track Jussie on video all the way from his apartment to subway and back but for a little less than a minute. Of all the holes in this story, and there are many, this is one of the biggest.

At this rate, it’s probably worth asking where Ralph Northam was during this “attack”.

I'd be even more interested on if they have video indicating when the noose appeared around his neck.

And how much information they have as to how big the "physical hole in coverage" was that covers his 60 seconds off camera. 

Are we talking a relatively small area maybe a dozen feet across with a hidden alcove(with other means of entry/exit)? (perfect place for an ambush{

Or are we talking about an area say 100 feet or so across that is effectively contained due to walls/other factors which would force movement past other cameras going and coming? Of course, the problem is if its a "100 foot hole" then he has 60 seconds to walk 100 feet(not hard, average person walks 1.4 m/s or 4.59 feet/s), giving them about 40 seconds to confront him and for him to walk away.

Although honestly, if I'd just encountered something like that, I'd probably been running "for a good distance" to ensure they weren't right behind me before resuming walking. Does the surveillance video reflect anything like that?

Almost have to feel bad to Chicago PD on this one, as bad as their "race relations" are with the Black/African-American communities, finding "no supporting evidence" that an assault happened as Jussie described is going to be framed as both victim blaming and a cover up.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on February 03, 2019, 04:03:18 PM
The FBI is also investigating. That will give CPD cover.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on February 03, 2019, 04:21:43 PM
Quote
Although honestly, if I'd just encountered something like that, I'd probably been running "for a good distance" to ensure they weren't right behind me before resuming walking. Does the surveillance video reflect anything like that?

Not that I’m aware of. He just walks calmly around, sandwich in hand. It’s almost as if nothing really happened.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDeamon on February 03, 2019, 04:24:39 PM
The FBI is also investigating. That will give CPD cover.

Not with Trump as President.  8)
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on February 03, 2019, 04:27:44 PM
The FBI is also investigating. That will give CPD cover.

Not with Trump as President.  8)
Ha.

By the way, Jussie has motive. Here’s one of his tweets:

Quote
Shut the hell up you bitch ass nigga. You will continue to run this country further into the ground and risk lives every time you breathe. You’re not the president. Just a dumpster full of hate. FOH. Sick to my stomach that literal *censored* currently represents America to the world.

Yeah, I’m about 90/10 in calling it all a hoax.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDeamon on February 03, 2019, 04:41:02 PM
Would be par for the course with a number of reported "hate crimes" since 2016.

I was 50/50 on it when he was being described as "vocal activist for gay rights" and a few other issues that have a significant portion of their number linked solidly with anti-Trump.

Activists have been known to do things to "raise awareness" up to and including faking things, and this guy is an actor as well. It just appears whichever flavor of activist was involved, Anti-Trump or Pro-Trump "MAGAs," they either had lousy venue selection(if anti-Trump), or "great" venue selection if it really was a Pro-Trump group that did it. We're largely working on innuendos and rumor at this point as the police haven't released anything to speak of.

But if the reports you're mentioning pan out as correct, it looks to be a hoax.Which is very bad for the very people he claims to be trying to help, but then, he probably didn't expect Chicago's camera coverage to be that good, so he didn't expect to be called out on it--he wanted an unsolved case.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Pete at Home on February 03, 2019, 07:13:46 PM
"Hate crimes" understates the crime.  This is terrorism and chemical warfare and needs to be treated accordingly.  Hate crime makes it sound like just one more of those stupid Feminarc/SJnarc games where they say that it's only aggravated because the culprit was white and the victim not white.  That's precisely the cause of uneducated white tweakers behaving like, well the nazis who invented meth in the first place.  Last May I told the Aryan Nation personally*** when it showed up in my car and demanded that I move a pound of meth that  methamphetamine is the greatest crime ever perpetrated against the caucasian race.  But the second greatest crime against American Caucasians is also the 1st greatest existing ongoing crime against all other
"races" in America: unequal standards and laws resulting in a culture of competitive collective self-pity (CCSP).

That's my take on it. Back to you.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: cherrypoptart on February 04, 2019, 01:55:40 AM
So let's look at the facts and the assertions and go ahead and make some educated guesses. Despite the area being covered by video cameras there is no surveillance evidence of any potential assailants fitting that description anywhere in the area. Now what are the odds that people who actually are MAGA types, and I count myself as one, would watch the show Empire enough to even know who this guy is and be able to recognize him as a random passerby in the middle of a cold, dark winter night when everyone is bundled up against the polar vortex? I'm going to say pretty low. And then why would he keep wearing the noose for forty minutes even after he got to a a place of safety? Sure you don't want to tamper with evidence but you could probably take it off at least, especially if you had gloves on, without messing up fingerprints or DNA on it.

No, it's pretty obvious what really must have happened here.

This was a well planned surgical strike by a very sophisticated, highly coordinated, technologically savvy, elite hate crimes black ops organization. They are tied into the camera feeds so know exactly how to avoid them and / or they hacked into the cameras to loop the scene and / or hacked into the servers to erase the real footage and substitute in fake files. And why keep the noose around his neck? He didn't mention it but could the evil organization, perhaps an aptly named one like Division, be threatening further action against him or a beloved pet to make him keep it on for a certain period of time? That would serve to cast doubt on his story because people like me would wonder why didn't he just take it off. Then why not tell him to keep quiet about the whole thing with the same threat? That would defeat the purpose. They want this hate crime well publicized but to add insult to his injury they know they've covered their tracks so well that he is obviously being framed to make it look like it is a fake hate crime when it was all entirely too real. They know they are tarnishing his good name by covering up all the evidence and that is another purpose to this specific attack, to both sow fear into those who believe it is real as well as to sow doubt into those who can be easily confused so that other such attacks will also be questioned. Now who could or would want to go through all this trouble and have the means to do so?

The victim answered that himself with his honestly felt words exposing Trump for an evil hateful villain. But of course that's just a little too obvious. Trump hasn't really said anything against gays and has never come out against gay marriage, unlike both Obama and Hillary Clinton. No, if you've watched 24 you know the score. Who has the most to gain by watching Trump fall? Well who is next in line to become President and has a history of homophobia? It both makes as well as rhymes with common sense. This is a smear campaign on so many levels. Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. Quite elementary indeed.

References: 24, Nikita (the TV show), Sherlock Holmes.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on February 04, 2019, 07:52:36 AM
Here’s a theory. It was the Subway employees. They see Jussie and know it’s their chance. Being in the store, they don’t show up on cameras entering or leaving the area. They have chemicals and a noose under the counter for just these moments. After the beating, they hand him his sammy and send him on his way.

It fits. If it had been a chik-fil-a, this would be a very talked about theory. How long before the media floats this one?

Although, the media has inexplicably kind of gone dark n this story....
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDeamon on February 04, 2019, 03:55:09 PM
So he turned up and held a performance last night, and read a statement about his condition as part of it.

Awfully convenient that he escaped with only minor injuries that had him sufficiently recovered in time for his next scheduled gig. (Particularly given the allegation that the camera footage never indicates he was in distress)

Almost like he might know somebody sufficiently skilled in a fighting art that they could "rough him up just enough" to make the story believable, but not bad enough as to threaten him in a meaningful way.

Could also explain the 40 minute wait upon getting back to the apartment. The one-sided "sparring session" started shortly after he made it back, and most of the wait was for the bruising to stabilize before calling the police in to investigate.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on February 07, 2019, 04:35:48 PM
It’s been a week, the FBI and CPD have used Chicago’s extensive surveillance system to narrow down the window of attack to about 60 seconds. So far, they don’t see anyone on the recordings that could be Smollett’s attackers.  They’d have to have been ninjas or something.

Given all the other details and those that have been changing, I really can’t see this as anything other than a hoax. Maybe something will break and we’ll find out otherwise but that timing and lack of assailants is hard to get past. CPD says they will change Smollett if it turns out to be false.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: DonaldD on February 15, 2019, 06:31:29 PM
Pass the popcorn
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDeamon on February 15, 2019, 06:54:32 PM
So his assailants have evidently been identified, one of them was an extra on Empire, which is the show Smollet stars in.

It also appears they were difficult to find because shortly after the incident happened, they left the country to go to a place where Racist MAGAs are just so eager to go visit... Nigeria, a trip from which they just recently returned.

Not to worry, police have executed warrants, searched their residences, and seized most of their electronics. Phones, computers, etc.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on February 16, 2019, 09:56:17 AM
The 2 nigerians have been released.

Reports are that Smollett has hired a high end defense attorney.

Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDeamon on February 16, 2019, 11:54:37 AM
The 2 nigerians have been released.

Reports are that Smollett has hired a high end defense attorney.

I really liked the twist where it turns out the two brothers share a social media account, and Smollett happens to be a follower of theirs(and the reverse as well). What are the odds that a black actor gets assaulted by some MAGAs, and the only two suspects surveillance video turns up are two black, Nigerian men, who happen to be known by the victim?

It's looking like the attack was either personal in nature, or staged. Politics likely had little to nothing to do with his becoming an assault victim. That they released the two suspects without charges says they also have little to no evidence to support the personal attack angle... Or those brothers being involved in staging anything. Which puts the ball into the court of figuring out what went on in Smollett's apartment building, where he says nothing happened. But then, investigators are claiming he isn't considered a suspect at this time...
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on February 16, 2019, 05:41:48 PM
Quote
Several CPD sources confirmed detectives were able to show the 2 Nigerian brothers questioned by police had purchased the rope found around Smollett’s neck at an Ace hardware. The brothers agreed to cooperate with police who are investigating whether Smollett made up the story after police threatened to charge them with battery.  The brothers attorney said both brothers knew Smollett.  There are unconfirmed reports that Smollett paid the two brothers to perform the alleged scheme. 

The CPD flipped those 2, which explains why Smollett went out and got a high priced defense attorney.

How soon before we hear something like, “yeah it was fake but it started an important conversation”?
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on February 17, 2019, 09:04:45 AM
Quote
Sources say at least one of the brothers purchased the rope used in Jussie Smollett incident at Crafty Beaver hardware store the weekend of Jan 25th.

Plain red hats worn by brothers were purchased from an Uptown beauty supply store

CPD has officially announced that Smollett is no longer considered a victim.

Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on February 17, 2019, 09:20:39 AM
Smollett continues to insist that he’s a victim and his story is true.

I predict verbal attacks on the CPD now, probably about them being racist, maybe homophobic,  and I expect the “fake but accurate“ crowd to jump into this.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on February 17, 2019, 09:57:57 AM
Quote
Sources say at least one of the brothers bought the rope used in the incident at Smollett’s request. The sources also say the “Empire” actor paid for the rope, which was purchased at the Crafty Beaver Hardware Store in the Ravenswood neighborhood the weekend of Jan. 25.

The brothers, who were questioned by police this week before being released, were paid $3,500 before leaving for Nigeria and were promised an additional $500 upon their return.
They left for Nigeria later in the day on Jan. 29, after the attack.

Sources said one of the brothers held the rope and poured bleach while the other wore a plain red hat and yelled slurs at Smollett.

The sources say the red hat was bought at an Uptown beauty supply store and that the attack was supposed to happen before Jan. 29. The brothers told detectives the three men rehearsed the attack days prior to it happening.

If this is accurate, and it’s looking like it very well may be, Smollett will be facing up to 3 years in prison.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on February 17, 2019, 12:31:05 PM
Why so much glee? Smollett is disturbed and will quite likely go to jail, or if his attorney is good enough he'll go straight to probation on a plea deal. I doubt your prediction will come true, even CNN isn't trying to spin this, nor are they burying this.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on February 17, 2019, 01:01:04 PM
Glee? Really? Why do you think I take pleasure in this?

Being smeared as a racist and a homophobe, as someone prone to violence and a threat to any non-white, non-straight person was what happened here. If you want to see the glee, check out CNN, MSNBC, NYT, ABC, CBS, NBC, GQ, virtually every democrat presidential candidate and scores of celebrities. Better do that quick, those tweets are about to disappear. This will be down the memoriy hole asquick as they can push it.

Want to see the spin starting? Check out Brian Stelter. They’re still working on the messaging but it’s happening.

Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on February 17, 2019, 01:57:12 PM
Quote
CNN's Brian Stelter on Smollett: "Perhaps the questioning was not tough enough on Good Morning America, but ultimately this is not about the media or politicians or activists, or any of the other people that might have been fooled. It's about Jussie."

Wrong. It’s about Trump Derangement Syndrome, anti-white racism, and a media that blindly enables it. It’s about a intensely biased media once again so intent on a narrative that it fell down for, what its it, the 6th time this year?

Sure, throw Smollett under the bus, he belongs there. But so does the media and everyone else that fed this to the public for consumption.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on February 17, 2019, 02:09:24 PM
Quote
Robin Roberts: “Why do you think you were targeted?”

Smollett: “I come really really hard against 45. I come really really hard against his administration, and I don’t hold my tongue.”

Trump Derangement Syndrome is real.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on February 18, 2019, 08:05:08 AM
Interesting article from 2016. (https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272901/why-jussie-smollett-lied-and-all-hate-crime-jamie-glazov)

Quote
To gain power, totalitarian movements always portray themselves as victims. And while they are in the process of abusing, they cry in front of the world posing as the abused. They stage “hate-crime” attacks against themselves because hate crimes are their political and cultural capital. When those hate-crimes don’t exist, they must be invented.

We are witnessing precisely this phenomenon at this very moment in regards to the myriad hoax “hate-crimes” that anti-Trump forces are manufacturing out of thin air and blaming on Trump supporters. The media are bolstering the entire hallucination process, with CNN leading the way.

Precisely what we have seen in Smollett.

Quote
The left is a victimhood cult. It feeds off pain and fetishizes suffering as a moral commodity to be sold and resold in exchange for political power.

Quote
the abuser who pretends to be a victim. His arguments are his feelings. He comes armored in identity politics entitlement and is always yelling about social justice or crying social justice tears. If you don’t fight back, the cry-bully bullies you. If you fight back, the cry-bully cries and demands a safe space because you made him feel unsafe.

Quote
If cry-bullies can’t safe-bait you, they will manufacture threats by faking hate crimes against themselves or phoning in bomb threats to validate their need for a safe space in which no one is allowed to disagree with them. Surviving their own fake crimes turns cry-bullies into social justice heroes.

Smollett is just the latest in a long string of hate crime hoaxes. There’ll probably be another one in a couple of months.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on February 18, 2019, 08:17:52 AM
I doubt your prediction will come true, even CNN isn't trying to spin this, nor are they burying this.

On CNN’s Reliable sources yesterday:
Quote
Vox's Liz Plank on "This is MAGA country" quote: "The people who were repeating that quote were not news outlets...It was repeated by, sure, people who maybe had good intentions of wanting to spread the story...We can't confuse celebrity tweets with the media and the press.

It was, in fact, repeated many times on NYT, CNN, WaPo and others.

My prediction is now verified.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on February 18, 2019, 09:39:16 AM
Brian Stelter on CNN this morning

Quote
There was a rush to judgment, I think it was mostly in the celebrity press and among activists and among Twitter people. I think it was a really careful reporting by news organizations. But it all gets lumped in together at the end of the day...

This has been definitively shown to be false.

I expect CNN and the redt of the media to double down on this strategy.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: D.W. on February 18, 2019, 10:10:37 AM
Granted I don't watch TV, but this story finally did make it to the radio.  (holy crap does that make me sound old...)  I use the inter-web though for news I swear! 

It struck me that it was the possibility/probability of a hoax that made it news.  Was this "hate crime" story getting much traction outside of, "I call BS!", coverage?

Just curious, not trying to help sweep an evil-liberal false flag attempt under the rug.  ;)  I swear!
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: cherrypoptart on February 18, 2019, 12:02:51 PM
The media will act to cover it up as much as possible with a real hate crime, one caught on video and admitted to by the perp. It may not be as dramatic as a gay black man having a noose put around his neck and bleach poured on him by people doing a MAGA dance around him but at least it will be real. Something simple, like a guy throwing coffee at a Sikh because he mistook him for a Muslim and also apparently didn't feel like paying for the coffee.


https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/man-arrested-punching-pouring-coffee-sikh-7-eleven-clerk-thought-man-muslim-123309882.html
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDeamon on February 18, 2019, 12:07:06 PM
It was major national news for the first several days after it happened. He was routinely getting 1 to 2 minutes a night on the half-hour national evening news programs on NBC and ABC (can't speak for CBS) for the first week. With plenty of attention from CNN, and MSNBC as well no doubt. And because of that, Fox also had a hard time ignoring it, although I'd wager they were a little more skeptical from the start.

"Investigation updates" have been near daily on both NBC and ABC since then. Now that investigators think it might be a hoax, I expect their level of attention is going to wane. But not before playing up Smollet's lawyers claiming he is now on the receiving end of "victim blaming."

I think the media was really hoping for what Smollet was evidently hoping for, that the case would remain open and unsolved in perpetuity. They could just keep hammering away at the MAGAs and Trump without needing to undertake much effort.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Fenring on February 18, 2019, 12:10:04 PM
I do think Crunch has a least one point, which is the existence of cry-bullies. It's a cute term, one I've not heard, and I do think it bespeaks a totalitarian mindset. Or at least, it does so to the extent that there's a part of many people - possible all of us - that, deep down, desires to conquer those around us and subjugate them to our will. This isn't the only active desire in us, but it's in there somewhere. And when it's spurred on and incited this part can grow and become a 'moral' center for people who believe so strongly in their rightness that they will determine to eliminate the opportunity for dissent from others. This is no liberal thing but belongs to all, and what I would agree with is that the 'cry-bully' is an especially pernicious variety of this, which wears the wool of the lamb while trying to fleece you of your free will. But to be fair it's probably in the same building, different department, of the religious fundamentalist trying to stamp out evil. For the most part I think these are of such a similar ilk that the fact that they're on diametric opposite ends of the current political spectrum might be dismissed as a mere piece of trivia.

When comparing these two types I'm reminded of Eli and Daniel from There Will Be Blood, who are contrasted in temperament but in basic character are the same: desiring to own those around them. While Daniel is the "I don't need anyone" bootstrap type, and Eli is the "I need everyone to listen to me" manipulative type, fundamentally they're the same and this is brought home at the end, where (SPOILER) Daniel tells him "I won!" That's really all it boiled down to - who was going to win. Their methodology became essentially arbitrary to us, the viewer. So I do worry about the 'moral' types whose motive in their heart of heart is to control others. It gives morality a bad name and I think creates cynicism more than it achieves anything else.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on February 18, 2019, 01:51:09 PM
Down the memory hole:

Quote
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi deleted a tweet expressing sympathy for Jussie Smollett, posted before allegations he faked a homophobic and racist attack on himself emerged.

She probably won’t be the only one.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on February 18, 2019, 01:54:03 PM
Granted I don't watch TV, but this story finally did make it to the radio.  (holy crap does that make me sound old...)  I use the inter-web though for news I swear! 

It struck me that it was the possibility/probability of a hoax that made it news.  Was this "hate crime" story getting much traction outside of, "I call BS!", coverage?

Just curious, not trying to help sweep an evil-liberal false flag attempt under the rug.  ;)  I swear!

It got over 100 minutes of coverage on networks, it was in heavy rotation. Twitter was wall to wall in celebrity, pundit, and political circles. It was regularly reported as a fact that he was attacked by Trump supporters. Smollett did a interview on Good Morning America
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on February 18, 2019, 01:57:20 PM
Quote
It's a cute term, one I've not heard, and I do think it bespeaks a totalitarian mindset. Or at least, it does so to the extent that there's a part of many people - possible all of us - that, deep down, desires to conquer those around us and subjugate them to our will.

Absolutely not all of us. Probably just the people you most hang out with.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDeamon on February 18, 2019, 04:16:35 PM
Quote
It's a cute term, one I've not heard, and I do think it bespeaks a totalitarian mindset. Or at least, it does so to the extent that there's a part of many people - possible all of us - that, deep down, desires to conquer those around us and subjugate them to our will.

Absolutely not all of us. Probably just the people you most hang out with.

"My will" is that I be left alone to do my own thing as I see fit when I'm on my own time in my own space.

I could care less what others are or are not doing so long as it doesn't impact me directly. Indirect impacts are often unavoidable, and that becomes a matter of scale with respect to impact.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Fenring on February 18, 2019, 11:47:22 PM
Quote
It's a cute term, one I've not heard, and I do think it bespeaks a totalitarian mindset. Or at least, it does so to the extent that there's a part of many people - possible all of us - that, deep down, desires to conquer those around us and subjugate them to our will.

Absolutely not all of us. Probably just the people you most hang out with.

Shakespeare would scoff at a denial that we have our darker parts. It doesn't mean they have to control or define us; but what if they sometimes do? How terrible it would then be not to be in touch with these influential aspects and to know what they do.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDeamon on February 19, 2019, 12:27:35 AM
Shakespeare would scoff at a denial that we have our darker parts. It doesn't mean they have to control or define us; but what if they sometimes do? How terrible it would then be not to be in touch with these influential aspects and to know what they do.

Most good writers would scoff on the principle that few people believe themselves to be evil. They believe that what they're doing needs to be done because it in the best interests of everyone involved.

And sadly for FAR too many people, Trump included, its a case of "The world would be a much better place if people didn't disagree with me and instead did what I wanted them to do."

But it seems to me that the left-wits have a far worse case of that than even Trump does. At least he grasps the concept of "Fine, I'll take my toys and go play by myself then." Even if a lot of people are extremely uncomfortable with the scope of what falls under the purview of "his toys" at the moment.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDeamon on February 19, 2019, 02:01:50 AM
And then somebody points this out as well:

This now evidently makes the 4th Major National News Story this year to turn out to be "Fake News" relative to how it turned out, and we're not even done with the second calendar month yet.

1) Racially motivated drive by shooting of a young black girl by a white male in Houston? Nope, shot by a black man, thinking he was shooting at somebody else(another thug?).

2) BuzzFeed reporting that Trump ordered Cohen to lie before Congress? Fake.

3) Highschool students taunt and harrass a Tribal Elder and Vietnam Veteran? Fake and fake.

4) Gay Black Activist get assaulted by two men yelling "MAGA Country!" as they throw bleach on his face, hang a noose around his head and (lightly) pummel him? Looking like it was Staged(fake), or personal, not Racial/political.

Not a good year so far for the National Press Corps.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on February 19, 2019, 07:37:06 AM
That’s literally every other week. It’s a constant stream of lies from the media and the left.

2019, what an amazing year already.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: yossarian22c on February 20, 2019, 08:58:14 PM
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/20/695974164/chicago-police-jussie-smollett-under-suspicion-of-filing-false-police-report (https://www.npr.org/2019/02/20/695974164/chicago-police-jussie-smollett-under-suspicion-of-filing-false-police-report)

One of the top stories on the page.

Just for reference when people on the right decide to say that the retraction got no press.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on February 21, 2019, 07:57:56 AM
Quote
CHICAGO -- "Empire" actor Jussie Smollett surrendered to authorities Thursday morning after he was charged with one count of felony disorderly conduct for filing a false police report.

He faces 3 years in jail. He should get the full 3 as he’d have put innocent people in jail to maintain the hoax.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on February 21, 2019, 07:59:53 AM
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/20/695974164/chicago-police-jussie-smollett-under-suspicion-of-filing-false-police-report (https://www.npr.org/2019/02/20/695974164/chicago-police-jussie-smollett-under-suspicion-of-filing-false-police-report)

One of the top stories on the page.

Just for reference when people on the right decide to say that the retraction got no press.

This story went viral with heavy news coverage.  CNN is still blaming Trump. But hey, NPR, threw up a post so the media gets a pass!

 ::)
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: D.W. on February 21, 2019, 10:39:50 AM
Quote
He faces 3 years in jail. He should get the full 3 as he’d have put innocent people in jail to maintain the hoax.
While I anticipated nothing less than a maximum sentence "throw the book at him" approach from you, isn't this a bit absurd?  (Note:  I'm inclined to agree with that sentiment.)

If it was "staged", (which seems likely) then these were co-conspirators right?  The whole thing would have (and did seemingly) fall apart when these two were found.  I assume the intent was for the "attacker's" identity to never be learned.

Or do you believe (or was it revealed and I just missed it, quite possible I guess) that he framed two random people, or just made it up and didn't care if two random people got swept up in the lie?
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Seriati on February 21, 2019, 11:58:40 AM
Crunch, very impressed with this thread overall.  Good job on picking up on the narrative early!

Wrong. It’s about Trump Derangement Syndrome, anti-white racism, and a media that blindly enables it. It’s about a intensely biased media once again so intent on a narrative that it fell down for, what its it, the 6th time this year?

This continues to be the biggest issue to me.  The media keeps selling a lie about their opponents.

I saw a headline on a print news source this morning to the effect that Freedom of Press is fundemental to Democracy.  What's missing to me in the constant repetition of the importance of the rights of the press is any acknowledgment of the responsibility of the press. 

Where is their objectivity?  You don't have to avoid having a side to be objective and fair.  Picking how you cover things to sell a story you want to be true is not why we have press freedoms. 

If someone is openly acknowledged as being in the tank for a particular political group how are they "press"?  What is a "press" that only covers stories in a way that promotes a slant?  I can't bring myself to claim they "slant the truth" when I honestly think they do more promotion of lies (e.g., the right is racist and the left is not).

Quote
He faces 3 years in jail. He should get the full 3 as he’d have put innocent people in jail to maintain the hoax.

I suspect his intent was that no one would ever get found.  Of course, you may not have wanted to pay the Nigerian brothers with a personal check in that case.  Sigh.

That said, I'm not sure how I feel about the sentence.  It seems too harsh for staging a crime, though I'm still thinking it through.  The more significant damage here wasn't Smollet's crime it was the media's decision to promote it because it supports the lie they want to promote as truth.  That damaged countless people across the nation, it defamed by implication all Trump supporters, and then it added to the mental health problems of the left when it turned out to be a big ole lie.

But the law on fake crimes is doesn't, to my knowledge, consider the media impact.   That means that 3 years is the kind of sentence normal people would face for staging a crime.  Maybe, that's okay, maybe too much.  Sure wish we could add an aggravating factor for the political and media manipulation.  Heck, why can't we, what Smollet did is a hate crime.  He flat out admitted in his texts he hates Trump and his supporters.  What he did was every bit as much a hate crime as what we convict other people for.  If we're going to have hate crimes, then this conduct deserves the additional charge.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: D.W. on February 21, 2019, 12:18:36 PM
Got to agree with Seriati's (first) sentiment.  While I would have bet this was a Crunch investing in tinfoil type post at the start, you did have it dialed in pretty far in advance.   ;D
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: D.W. on February 21, 2019, 12:28:14 PM
Quote
Sure wish we could add an aggravating factor for the political and media manipulation.
  I think recent events have shown you can.  Or at least can make a case for it in court.  Alex Jones for instance can say whatever he pleases.  At issue there seems to be exactly the political / media manipulation (and getting paid there by). 

Maybe "Trump Supporters" can file a class action defamation claim against Smollet?   ???
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on February 21, 2019, 02:27:37 PM
When someone consistently expresses that reports are false, then when just one of them inevitably is false, that person can appear prescient.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: rightleft22 on February 21, 2019, 02:47:45 PM
I was please that the sources for news that I pay attention to only reported the story as Smollet as having filed a police report that he had been assaulted and that was in under "Entertainment" as he's actor or something. There was no speculation on if it happened or not or what it might mean if it did happen. Only the story that he filed a report. 

Other then this thread, it was the last I heard about it.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on February 21, 2019, 08:33:42 PM
What the...

Quote
Police say he staged the attack because he was "dissatisfied with his salary".

(BBC)

And...

Quote
Investigators managed to track and identify two men who appeared on video footage near where the actor said he had been attacked through a ride-sharing app.

Quote
Police say they have a cheque that Mr Smollett signed and that he had agreed to pay $3,500 for the brothers' participation.

So... you paid your co-conspirators with a freaking check? And then they took an Uber to the crime scene?

I'm simply speechless.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: D.W. on February 21, 2019, 11:23:31 PM
Quote
So... you paid your co-conspirators with a freaking check? And then they took an Uber to the crime scene?

I'm simply speechless.
It's obviously a double false flag operation!  Or we're watching a live action performance of the new Zoolander expanded universe franchise.   ::)

Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on February 22, 2019, 08:22:09 AM
Quote
He faces 3 years in jail. He should get the full 3 as he’d have put innocent people in jail to maintain the hoax.
While I anticipated nothing less than a maximum sentence "throw the book at him" approach from you, isn't this a bit absurd?  (Note:  I'm inclined to agree with that sentiment.)

If it was "staged", (which seems likely) then these were co-conspirators right?  The whole thing would have (and did seemingly) fall apart when these two were found.  I assume the intent was for the "attacker's" identity to never be learned.

Or do you believe (or was it revealed and I just missed it, quite possible I guess) that he framed two random people, or just made it up and didn't care if two random people got swept up in the lie?

Is it absurd to get the full three years? Consider what he was doing. Smollett was telling people he was ready to sign a complaint against the persons of interest identified on camera. It was only after he realized it was his coconspirators that he backed off. He was literally ready and willing to put innocent people in jail. Not to mention what would have happened to those innocent people in the media, they would have been destroyed. Smollett didn’t care.

Of course, over on CNN he’s being compared to Jackie Robinson.

Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: D.W. on February 22, 2019, 09:30:01 AM
Quote
Is it absurd to get the full three years? Consider what he was doing.
No.  Your rationale for the 3 years is absurd.  I got no problem with the hypothetical sentence. 

To further clarify:  Unless you again are way ahead of the curve, there has been no indication that he intended the two men he (allegedly?) hired to perpetrate the hoax to be unwitting dupes who would serve time as his fall guys.  :P 
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: rightleft22 on February 22, 2019, 09:52:22 AM
Quote
Of course, over on CNN he’s being compared to Jackie Robinson

Curiosity got the better of me and I watched some CNN coverage. It was pathetic. my god they can be sanctimonious. I mean some of the arguments they used to 'explain' themselves were ridiculous.
I do not consider the majority of programs on CNN as news programs. Just because they might talk about current affairs and such does not make it news.
 
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on February 22, 2019, 10:15:49 AM
Quote
Is it absurd to get the full three years? Consider what he was doing.
No.  Your rationale for the 3 years is absurd.  I got no problem with the hypothetical sentence. 

To further clarify:  Unless you again are way ahead of the curve, there has been no indication that he intended the two men he (allegedly?) hired to perpetrate the hoax to be unwitting dupes who would serve time as his fall guys.  :P

He’s probably not going to do any time. Even if he gets the full three years, he’ll be out in a fraction of that time.

After all the interviews, still claiming his story is true even today, and a willingness to originally sign a complaint, you think he would have suddenly decided to admit he made it up? I very strongly doubt that he would. I am 100% certain he would have let public opinion destroy them.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on February 22, 2019, 10:30:14 AM
It must be nice to be 100% certain about what somebody might have done in the future.

Sentencing is a funny thing. Is it to get revenge? Prevent him from reoffending? Deter others from trying a similar stunt?

Average incarceration costs the state $25,000 per year. What are we getting for the $75,000 society will pay in order to lock him up for three years? It might be even more, given his notoriety.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: D.W. on February 22, 2019, 11:22:55 AM
As this kind of "stunt" makes real victims less likely to be believed or get justice, ya, I think deterring others is the primary goal.  I don't think it's about revenge.  Who is getting even?  Actual victims?  MAGA supporters?  The police?  The public for being fooled / manipulated? 

Maybe we should be thanking this idiot.  He seems to be bringing all sides together in condemnation of him at least...

While I get the impulse to attack the media and them making a circus out of this, it was a "natural" reaction by them to this type of story.  That was the whole point of him staging the attack.  (allegedly...)  We are all the toads swimming along with the media scorpion on our backs at all time.  (or in our hand as we scroll a way anyhow)  Nothing about "the media's" reaction should surprise us at this point.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Seriati on February 22, 2019, 12:25:46 PM
When someone consistently expresses that reports are false, then when just one of them inevitably is false, that person can appear prescient.

I'm going to dispute this apparent criticism of my compliment.  I did not see Crunch "expressing" that reports are false on this thread, I saw him including reports of additional information that the MSM apparently was not interested in covering.  Given they are journalists and presumably Crunch is not, that was highly relevant facts.  If it were just assertions like say denying the moon landing your criticism could have merit, but not based on this thread.

While I get the impulse to attack the media and them making a circus out of this, it was a "natural" reaction by them to this type of story.  That was the whole point of him staging the attack.  (allegedly...)  We are all the toads swimming along with the media scorpion on our backs at all time.  (or in our hand as we scroll a way anyhow)  Nothing about "the media's" reaction should surprise us at this point.

I see great harm in the idea you are asserting here.  You've effectively excused the media from their only actual job, which is to get the facts and reporting them to us.  They unilaterally decided not to get the facts, which thanks to Crunch, we know were available if they had sought them out. 

That's like excusing your doctor for not keeping up on medical research when he misdiagnoses and obvious condition.  Or the local restaurant when they cook your food in peanut oil after you tell them you have an allergy.

The media does not have press freedoms to pass along rumors and to try to defend them simply because the stories agree with their own world view.  That's when they should be most cautious.  Meanwhile, it's just a fact that they ignore reporting actual hate crimes on a routine basis because those hate crimes don't fit the narrative they want to present as true.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: rightleft22 on February 22, 2019, 12:40:54 PM
Quote
That's like excusing your doctor for not keeping up on medical research when he misdiagnoses and obvious condition.

I think the problem is confusing the information coming from a doctor and information retrieved from other sources.
When Smollet story transitioned into political speculation and partisan clap that's not News.

We need to define our boundaries when it comes to calling out the "media".
Avoiding speculation and opinion 'media' has left me much happier.

Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: D.W. on February 22, 2019, 01:01:42 PM
Quote
You've effectively excused the media from their only actual job, which is to get the facts and reporting them to us.
That you still hold them to such a standard is more idealistic than I took you for. 

Their "job" is to sell add revenue.  Their medium, ideally, is useful information.  Though more often than not, entertaining speculation.   :-\
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDeamon on February 22, 2019, 01:11:24 PM
He’s probably not going to do any time. Even if he gets the full three years, he’ll be out in a fraction of that time.

Probably get a "token" sentence in most respects. Either a 1 to 2 month stay in lockup followed by probation/parole, or a suspended prison sentence. With the final part of the sentence being a boatload of community service being assigned.

I'm leaning towards the suspended sentence, community service, and probation for at least 2 years. Assuming such a combination is possible. It won't seem that bad to many people, but it will certainly be plenty disruptive to his ability to function for years to come.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: D.W. on February 22, 2019, 01:15:33 PM
In this case at least, there is also instant karma at work.  His ability to maintain an acting career is going to be sorely tested after this smudge on his reputation.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDeamon on February 22, 2019, 01:32:35 PM
In this case at least, there is also instant karma at work.  His ability to maintain an acting career is going to be sorely tested after this smudge on his reputation.

You'd be surprised. That said, it's probably going to be a very long time before he sees the kind of money he was seeing on Empire again, if he ever does.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on February 23, 2019, 07:50:13 AM
It must be nice to be 100% certain about what somebody might have done in the future.

Sentencing is a funny thing. Is it to get revenge? Prevent him from reoffending? Deter others from trying a similar stunt?

Average incarceration costs the state $25,000 per year. What are we getting for the $75,000 society will pay in order to lock him up for three years? It might be even more, given his notoriety.

It’s easy to be so certain here because Smollett was on board with signing the complaint until he saw it was the two people he hired. He was definitely going to put innocent people away. As for the media destruction, come on, you know that would have happened.

We need to start a deterrent for these crimes. What is the cost of incarcerating or destroying innocent people?
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on February 23, 2019, 08:30:00 AM
Quote
I'm going to dispute this apparent criticism of my compliment.  I did not see Crunch "expressing" that reports are false on this thread, I saw him including reports of additional information that the MSM apparently was not interested in covering.  Given they are journalists and presumably Crunch is not, that was highly relevant facts.

I appreciate the compliments but all I really did was maintain a healthy skepticism and curiosity. The real work was done by Rafer Weigel, a local reporter in Chicago. The guy has a relentless “just the facts, ma’am“ drive and much of the information I posted came almost exclusively from him so the credit is all his. Weigel did precisely what I wish the news media would do, he reported the news without bias or trying to create a narrative.

It’s worth noting that Weigel ultimately appeared on Fox News to discuss this story. No other media outlet reached out to him.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on February 23, 2019, 04:26:55 PM
Quote
Jussie Smollett told cops he has an untreated drug problem — raising questions about whether he might try to use the claim to at least get any potential prison sentence reduced, according to a report Friday.

Of course, he has an addiction. If that didn’t cause him to do this it certainly was a mitigating factor and we should all feel badly for Jussie. No doubt he will seek treatment and ask that you respect his privacy during this difficult time.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Seriati on February 25, 2019, 11:10:39 AM
Quote
You've effectively excused the media from their only actual job, which is to get the facts and reporting them to us.
That you still hold them to such a standard is more idealistic than I took you for. 

Their "job" is to sell add revenue.  Their medium, ideally, is useful information.  Though more often than not, entertaining speculation.   :-\

I think you lost my context here.  They have the rights of being the free press because they are undertaking the responsibilities of the free press.  As it stands, if their sole purpose is entertainment and the spreading of rumors then then they really are harming the country.  Propaganda, yellow journalism, intentional deception and lies.  In what way do these lead to educated citizens and a better democracy?  Those are the tools of facists and dictators and those whose ideas can not withstand fair scrutiny. 

Is the only constraint that it not be a government press - like say Chinese or Russian media.  Is that the only danger?  Would it be okay if the Chinese press were officiallly neutral but fully made up of members of the Chinese communist party?  How is that different from a media in the United States that is openly in the tank for the Democratic party?

When you add social media with it's shadow banning, and deliberate algorithyms to suppress one side of the debate.  How substantively is it different than a state media that's only showing you what it wants you to see?

What distinguishes the "press" from anyone else in your book?   And what makes it free?
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDeamon on February 25, 2019, 01:39:34 PM
That raises a valid point. At this point, what is the difference between Wolf Blitzer and either one of the Baldwin brothers?

"Artistic Expression" is also protected, but only up to a point, as Strip Club operations can attest.

"The Press" is protected not for art, and not for entertainment. It is protected so "inconvenient facts" cannot be suppressed from being made known to the wider population.

If they cannot be bothered with facts, or sifting truth from fiction, then they are in breach of "the social contract" which warranted their protected status. Their need to "create value" for their employer not withstanding.

Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: rightleft22 on February 25, 2019, 02:43:31 PM
The majority of programming of the 24/7 news channels is not news. The majority of content is editorial and speculation opinion panels.

Most of the people I've talked react to editorial, opinion and speculation not the news without realizing the difference.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on February 25, 2019, 10:48:49 PM
The majority of programming of the 24/7 news channels is not news. The majority of content is editorial and speculation opinion panels.

Most of the people I've talked react to editorial, opinion and speculation not the news without realizing the difference.
Ever notuce that 98% of is all slanted one direction?
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on February 25, 2019, 11:20:28 PM
What the...

Quote
Police say he staged the attack because he was "dissatisfied with his salary".

That makes perfect sense to me if we assume he was a psychopath. He figured that a staged attack would increase his publicity and thus revitalize his career, which he could then leverage to better pay.

Thankfully he was thwarted in his plan by police investigators.

Quote
So... you paid your co-conspirators with a freaking check? And then they took an Uber to the crime scene?

I'm simply speechless.

I loved Trevor Noah's take on this,

Quote
Noah then brought up the fact that Smollett is said to have paid the two men with a check.

"What, did he also write, 'fake hate crime' in the memo?" the host quipped. "Even amateurs know, if you commit a crime, you go all cash, people! No paper trail."

Later in the clip, Noah talked about how Chicago Police claim that Smollett wanted the crime to be caught on camera, "but that didn't go right either," noted the host, as the actual crime wasn't caught on rotating security cameras — only the activity beforehand.

"You've got to be *censored*ting me," said Noah. "He wanted to be caught but he didn't get caught on camera because he didn't know which way the camera was pointing? You're an actor, that's your job!"

Toward the end, Noah pointed out how the thought processes have changed in this case.

"When this started out, it was a story about people who hated Jussie Smollett because he was black and gay," said Noah. But now, people hate him because he's an *censored*. In other words, they're judging him on the content of his character. And that, my friends, is progress."

https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/8499562/trevor-noah-weighs-in-on-jussie-smollett-case
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on March 09, 2019, 07:40:04 AM
Quote
A grand jury in Chicago has indicted “Empire” actor Jussie Smollett on 16 felony counts related to making a false report that he was attacked by two men in Chicago who shouted racial and homophobic slurs.

That’s one felony per claim. One felony for rope around neck claim, one for bleach claim, one for punching claim, one for hate speech claim etc. Each count carries a maximum of four years so he could get up to 64 years in prison. I doubt he’ll get 64 years but it looks like he’ll get a few. Even 6 months per count gets pretty heavy.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on March 09, 2019, 08:25:03 AM
That indictment does not include the potential federal charges for the fake letter and crushed tylenol he sent himself. What a dumbass
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on March 09, 2019, 09:01:47 AM
What the...

Quote
Police say he staged the attack because he was "dissatisfied with his salary".

That makes perfect sense to me if we assume he was a psychopath. He figured that a staged attack would increase his publicity and thus revitalize his career, which he could then leverage to better pay.

It almost worked. He got huge publicity, his music career was getting noticed. You don’t have to assume he’s a psychopath, he was angling to be a victim. Being a victim is power, it gets you on GMA and has celebrities, news agencies,  and politicians pushing you and your story. The left loves victims.  In the wake of Kavanaugh and Ford, it’s not surprising at all that Smollett thought this would work for him.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 09, 2019, 10:21:17 AM
It's too soon to actually say it didn't work. Maybe he will just disappear from view but it's entirely possible that this could work out to his financial benefit still.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on March 19, 2019, 08:24:46 AM
The fallout is starting around State Attorney Kim Foxx:

Quote
Last week, the Tribune obtained emails showing that while police were still in the middle of their investigation into the alleged hate crime, Foxx was contacted by a politically-connected attorney friendly with Smollett’s family, saying they had "concerns about the investigation."

Foxx then asked Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson to end the police investigation and turn it over to the FBI, which never happened. The union believes Foxx may have broken the law when she tried to take the case away from Chicago police.

Who was that “politically-connected attorney friendly with Smollett’s family”?  Michelle Obama’s former chief of staff, Tina Tchen. Tchen is also a close friend of Rahm Emanuel’s wife.  Tchen reached out to Foxx who emailed her to say “spoke to Supt Johnson. I convinced him to to reach out to FBI to ask that they take over investigation.”  Foxx then texted with a Jussie Smollett relative and said “spoke to Supt earlier, he made the ask. Trying to figure out logistics. I’ll keep you posted.” Relative replied “OMG, this would be a huge victory.” Foxx wrote. “I make no guarantees but I’m trying.”

For those that think they are lawyers, attorneys are not allowed to interfere with ongoing police investigations particularly at the request of private individuals associated with subjects being investigated. What we need now is an investigation of Kim Foxx, her family, her friends, and everyone they know so we can figure out how deep the rot goes.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on March 19, 2019, 06:04:29 PM
You don’t have to assume he’s a psychopath,

Non-psychopaths simply don't think or act that way.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on March 19, 2019, 06:10:07 PM
The union believes Foxx may have broken the law when she tried to take the case away from Chicago police.

The union is wrong.  Alleged hate crimes are often turned over to federal jurisdiction.  The reason is that the FBI does a much more thorough job.

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights/hate-crimes

It sounds like Smollet's family weren't told that he had staged it and thus were trying to get it escalated.

Quote
For those that think they are lawyers, attorneys are not allowed to interfere with ongoing police investigations particularly at the request of private individuals associated with subjects being investigated. What we need now is an investigation of Kim Foxx, her family, her friends, and everyone they know so we can figure out how deep the rot goes.

There is no suggestion of interference at this time.  Pressuring a case to be escalated is not considered 'interference' and is quite common for family of victims.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on March 19, 2019, 07:14:10 PM
 ::)
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on March 19, 2019, 09:21:12 PM
So your eyeroll is extremely communicative.  I'm curious why you think that wanting a crime escalated to the FBI is something they would want if they were aware of his crime?  Do you think the FBI would 'go easy on him'?  I'm curious what your theory is of why they would think that would be a good idea.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDeamon on March 20, 2019, 12:23:51 AM
So your eyeroll is extremely communicative.  I'm curious why you think that wanting a crime escalated to the FBI is something they would want if they were aware of his crime?  Do you think the FBI would 'go easy on him'?  I'm curious what your theory is of why they would think that would be a good idea.

I'd suspect it could be summarized as "Obama's Legacy at DoJ."

I'd even give decent, but not great, odds of that being a valid concern as well.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on March 20, 2019, 01:11:38 AM
I'd suspect it could be summarized as "Obama's Legacy at DoJ."

I'd even give decent, but not great, odds of that being a valid concern as well.

So, is the theory there is a secret cabal of liberal FBI agents that will deliberately bungle an investigation of someone who is pretty much a nobody?  Do you have theories of what these theorized liberal FBI agents would have to gain that they would take such a risk to their career?  How do you suppose they would be assigned to the case? If you were the liberal cabal directing this thing - how would you go about letting everyone in on the fact that it was a hoax so they know it is supposed to be covered up, rather than that they are being given something they are legitimately supposed to investigate?

I'd love to have insight into the conspiracy theorists mindset on this.  If someone is willing to think it through and then tell me that they still think it plausible (and especially what the come up with for how to coordinate the conspiracy), I'll be impressed.

Essentially we have A - the conspiracy theory version
1) Smollet has to share it with the family
2) The family has to share it with the lawyer
3) The lawyer has to share it with the prosecutor
4) The prosecutor has to share it whoever assigns FBI agents
5) Ther person who assigns FBI agents has to share it with the FBI agents who are assigned.
6) Then the assigned agents have to falsify an investigation to make themselves look incompetent.

We also have to believe that the Smolletts know the FBI is corrupt and believe that they will carry out a complex conspiracy coverup on their behalf.

That is a minimum of 5 people risking their careers and possibly freedom for a nobody.

vs  B  the non conspiracy version

Smollet engages in criminality without telling anyone and his family wants the best people on the job to avenge their family member and try and influence things to get the FBI involved.

Can you perhaps see why version B might be a bit more plausible?
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDeamon on March 20, 2019, 02:52:03 AM
Generally agreed. It's unlikely in the extreme that they wanted the FBI to take over the case and for Chicago to get out of it because they thought the FBI wouldn't pursue it if they thought it was a hoax.

Then again, there is that lingering "Obama's Legacy" thing going on, with indications being the FBI was politicized, in favor of the Democratic Party. It also was "well reported" during the Obama Admin that there were people working in DOJ, with specific specialization in Hate Crimes, who flat out said that they "didn't think black people were capable of being racist." (Cue archival footage of New Black Panthers members "Representing" outside of polling locations in Philly during an election year)

In THAT context, it is possible that if a family member suspected the attack was staged  by Smollet. His best chance/only hope for the case to be quietly shelved and remaining "forever unsolved" was to get in the hands of DOJ, rather than CPD, and hope some of Obama's people would get their hands on the case file, and let it die before they implicated Smollet.

In that particular scenario you have to also keep in mind, in many cases DOJ "doesn't care" about unresolved hate crimes in any particular location. CPD on the other hand, DOES care about that kind of stuff going on within their territory, because it reflects on their city. So CPD had more "built-in" incentive to solve the case than the Feds did, particularly once the case started pointing towards "victim blaming."

But I'm personally about 95% certain that they were trying to get "the best people" on the case for solving it. Rather than getting "sympathetic persons" on the case who'd either solve it, or shelve it, as the situation warranted.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on March 20, 2019, 08:02:02 AM
So your eyeroll is extremely communicative.  I'm curious why you think that wanting a crime escalated to the FBI is something they would want if they were aware of his crime?  Do you think the FBI would 'go easy on him'?  I'm curious what your theory is of why they would think that would be a good idea.

I don’t think a state attorney secretly communicating with the family of the accused and interfering on their behalf in an active investigation is a good idea. It means the politically connected have a different justice system than those of us without those connections. Why do you think that’s a good idea?

CPD was doung a first rate job, they investigated just as they should have. Why do you think CPD was not competent?
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on March 20, 2019, 08:06:10 AM
Quote
I don’t think a state attorney secretly communicating with the family of the accused

I think you have a temporal problem here. At the time they communicated, secretly or not, JS was most definitely not accused of anything. He was the victim, remember?
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on March 20, 2019, 08:17:55 AM
Quote
I don’t think a state attorney secretly communicating with the family of the accused

I think you have a temporal problem here. At the time they communicated, secretly or not, JS was most definitely not accused of anything. He was the victim, remember?

I think you have a investigative procedure problem but that’s  irrelevant in the defense of politically connected people interfering in an active investigation. Why do you think think it’s a good idea to have that?
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on March 20, 2019, 08:22:31 AM
Families of victims regularly put pressure on law enforcement to solve a case. Why do you think that is unusual or nefarious?
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on March 20, 2019, 08:30:03 AM
I guess if you think that politically connected people shouldn't interfere with an investigation that you are pretty upset that Trump asked Comey to let Flynn off the hook.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on March 20, 2019, 10:56:21 AM
Families of victims regularly put pressure on law enforcement to solve a case. Why do you think that is unusual or nefarious?

Are they politically connected and trying to get the investigation materially changed?

I guess if you think that politically connected people shouldn't interfere with an investigation that you are pretty upset that Trump asked Comey to let Flynn off the hook.
I guess if you think that politically connected people should interfere with an investigation that you are pretty happy that Trump asked Comey to let Flynn off the hook.

See how ridiculous that was?
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on March 20, 2019, 11:32:10 AM
Quote
I guess if you think that politically connected people should interfere with an investigation that you are pretty happy that Trump asked Comey to let Flynn off the hook.

See how ridiculous that was?

It would be, if I ever took the position that victim's families demanding justice are interfering. If I thought they were trying to protect their family member, I'd have a pretty dim view.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Seriati on March 20, 2019, 12:18:21 PM
This is a weird story, not as weird as the underlying story but getting there.

First, it makes me sad that so many people seem to think investigating an assault or battery claim is a federal matter rather than a state.  It's literally not.  We shouldn't be participating in the federalization of criminal law where they have no legitimate authority.  Plus, without a suspect there's reasonable basis to believe it's an actual hate crime, and by the time suspects were identified it was pretty clear it wasn't.  Why would there be any move to push it to the feds?

Second, it really is beyond bizarre for a prosecutor to engage in that kind of conversation.  And agreeing to pursue a request on it is even more bizarre.

So, is the theory there is a secret cabal of liberal FBI agents that will deliberately bungle an investigation of someone who is pretty much a nobody?

No, I think the theory is that when you have a dedicated team of hate crime investigators they'll strain to make everything a hate crime.

Same way that when we have a dedicated team of anti-terrorism agents they end up charging routine matters as terrorism related.

Hate crimes are a unconstitutional violation of the Constitutional principal of equal protection under the law.  They also a thought crime that criminalizes a legal view point - hate that is guaranteed under the 1st Amendment. 

Quote
Do you have theories of what these theorized liberal FBI agents would have to gain that they would take such a risk to their career?

What risk?  Dead investigations by the FBI almost never have details released. 

Quote
How do you suppose they would be assigned to the case?

They work in the hate crimes unit?

Quote
If you were the liberal cabal directing this thing - how would you go about letting everyone in on the fact that it was a hoax so they know it is supposed to be covered up, rather than that they are being given something they are legitimately supposed to investigate?

You don't need a cabal, all you need is to appoint dedicated and principaled people who honestly believe they are doing the right and just thing.  Are you not unhappy with how ICE operates?  There's no question that it's officers believe in their cause.  Why would it be any different with FBI agents that honestly believe they have a mandate to stop hate?

Quote
I'd love to have insight into the conspiracy theorists mindset on this.  If someone is willing to think it through and then tell me that they still think it plausible (and especially what the come up with for how to coordinate the conspiracy), I'll be impressed.

No need for any conspiracy.

Quote
Essentially we have A - the conspiracy theory version
1) Smollet has to share it with the family
2) The family has to share it with the lawyer
3) The lawyer has to share it with the prosecutor
4) The prosecutor has to share it whoever assigns FBI agents
5) Ther person who assigns FBI agents has to share it with the FBI agents who are assigned.
6) Then the assigned agents have to falsify an investigation to make themselves look incompetent.

Or, more likely given this is Chicago and we're talking about a lawyer connected to the Obama's and the Emmanuel's they heard from a contact in the CPD about the very issues that Crunch was reporting on real time, that CPD had real doubts about the story, and they decided to pull levers to get it out of the CPD.

You don't even have to assume they were acting in bad faith.  They could have believed in their hearts that CPD was acting on racist and homophobic impulses and wanted to get into neutral FBI agents.  Or they literally, could have known where it'd go in the FBI (most likely) and known what'd most likely happen.

We don't have to go to the absurd realm of crazy conspiracies just because you'd like to argue against them.

Occam's razor.  Given we know what the leaks were implying (as Crunch was helpfully feeding them to us), so would the Chicago elite (in fact other articles say that Foxx was specifically told they were concerned about the leaks).

Quote
We also have to believe that the Smolletts know the FBI is corrupt and believe that they will carry out a complex conspiracy coverup on their behalf.

We don't.  We can rely on the strong implication that they knew the CPD had serious doubts and was investigating them (since Foxx told us they knew of the leaks, and we know what the leaks said).  That alone is enough to try and get them off the case. 

Quote
That is a minimum of 5 people risking their careers and possibly freedom for a nobody.

If the case is transferred not one person risked their career by just letting it die.  They didn't have to bring charges against Smollet, the assailants could have remained "at large," and the brothers could have just been a unhappy coincidence that just missed coming to his rescue.  If there's really no video, there's no way to disprove that.

Quote
vs  B  the non conspiracy version

See above for the actual non conspiracy version.

Quote
Smollet engages in criminality without telling anyone and his family wants the best people on the job to avenge their family member and try and influence things to get the FBI involved.

Totally possible, except you left out explaining their reaction to the leaks and why it would be a win to stop CPD working on the case.

That said, it's total possible their motives were good, including for the reasons I laid out above.

Quote
Can you perhaps see why version B might be a bit more plausible?

No.  It's certainly possible, but it's not the best fit for the facts we know.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on March 20, 2019, 01:49:22 PM
First, it makes me sad that so many people seem to think investigating an assault or battery claim is a federal matter rather than a state.

For hate crimes it is indeed a federal matter, and at that time in the investigation it had a number of specific elements that Smollet claimed suggested it was a hate crime.

Quote
No, I think the theory is that when you have a dedicated team of hate crime investigators they'll strain to make everything a hate crime.

Same way that when we have a dedicated team of anti-terrorism agents they end up charging routine matters as terrorism related.

Hate crimes are a unconstitutional violation of the Constitutional principal of equal protection under the law.  They also a thought crime that criminalizes a legal view point - hate that is guaranteed under the 1st Amendment.

You've gone off on a tangent, but I'm not sure how this helps Smollet cover up his staged crime?  When hate crime investigators discover a hoax, what do you think their response will be?  Myself, I'd expect a wrath of god response - people doing hoaxes undermines the very serious nature of the crime.  So I'm really not clear why you think the Smollet family would think it a good idea if they were in on the hoax.  Your further responses are rather odd, they work in the hate crime unit ... so they will cover up a hate crime hoax because ... ????????

Quote
You don't need a cabal, all you need is to appoint dedicated and principaled people who honestly believe they are doing the right and just thing.  Are you not unhappy with how ICE operates?  There's no question that it's officers believe in their cause.  Why would it be any different with FBI agents that honestly believe they have a mandate to stop hate?

I can't understand how you imagine that they would look kindly on a hoax that spits in the face of their zeal.  I can fully follow your idea that "members of the hate crime unit will zealously pursue hate crimes, even to the extent of seeing crimes where none exists" - I don't see how that then leads to "but when they discover a hoax will cover it up".

You seem to have this bizarre juxtaposition - hates hate crime but will aide and abet a hate crime hoax to the detriment of their career and reputation.  I don't think anyone who isn't a conspiracy theorist can resolve these contradictions.

Quote
We don't.  We can rely on the strong implication that they knew the CPD had serious doubts and was investigating them (since Foxx told us they knew of the leaks, and we know what the leaks said).  That alone is enough to try and get them off the case.

But you still aren't explaining why the FBI wouldn't follow up and it end up even worse for Jussie?  Once it becomes federal he is in far more serious *censored*.  Mandatory minimum sentences.  If it is kept state, then the hoax probably ends up a misdemeanor and gets a few hundered hours of community service.  If the FBI discovers the hoax, he could be spending 5 years in jail and a minimum of 1.

Quote
If the case is transferred not one person risked their career by just letting it die.

You haven't explained why they "let it die".  To the FBI this is a high profile hate crime.  There would be pressure to solve it.  Why wouldn't the hate crimes division discover it is a hoax, and zealously seek prosecution agains the hoax perpetrator?

Quote
Totally possible, except you left out explaining their reaction to the leaks and why it would be a win to stop CPD working on the case.

That said, it's total possible their motives were good, including for the reasons I laid out above.

I admit I am at a loss trying to see your reasoning.  The bizarre conspiracy theory makes more sense then the reasoning you have provided.  The hate crimes division of the FBI goes happily along and buries the hoax even though there will be serious media pressure to solve such a high profile case because... ????  The family escalates to the FBI where their son will serve extremely serious jail time if discovered because ... ???

Quote
No.  It's certainly possible, but it's not the best fit for the facts we know.

Well I think you have some clarification that is needed for your reasoning to "fit the facts".  You have at least two items that seem completely contrary to human nature and rational thought.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on March 20, 2019, 01:52:58 PM
If the Smollet's were in fact trying to get an investigation squashed then I will be every bit as upset as Crunch, probably more so.  But I think a plain reading of the facts is the complete opposite of what Crunch is implying.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on March 20, 2019, 01:57:47 PM
Quote
I can't understand how you imagine that they would look kindly on a hoax that spits in the face of their zeal.  I can fully follow your idea that "members of the hate crime unit will zealously pursue hate crimes, even to the extent of seeing crimes where none exists" - I don't see how that then leads to "but when they discover a hoax will cover it up".

I think the idea is that they wouldn't discover the hoax because they wouldn't look for one. I find that unlikely. Even if you assume the FBI would never do any of those things, to believe this scenario you only have to think that Smollet thinks that's what will happen. He is the only one that knows there is no crime, so he could complain to family and friends that the investigation is going nowhere, that he isn't being taken seriously, and then the whole chain gets started without conspiracy.

For Smollet to take that action, he'd have to believe that the feds could be more easily duped. Since he's short on logic and planning, I could believe that was his plan.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on March 20, 2019, 02:24:29 PM
If the Smollet's were in fact trying to get an investigation squashed then I will be every bit as upset as Crunch, probably more so.  But I think a plain reading of the facts is the complete opposite of what Crunch is implying.

Well, it seems I misread the whole Smollet thing from the beginning, right? I think you just don't like it that you're always on the wrong side of this.

Quote
Foxx then texted with a Jussie Smollett relative and said “spoke to Supt earlier, he made the ask. Trying to figure out logistics. I’ll keep you posted.” Relative replied “OMG, this would be a huge victory.” Foxx wrote. “I make no guarantees but I’m trying.”

Why would Smollet's relative consider interfering with the investigation to take it away from the current CPD team and put it in someone else's hands "a huge victory"? What do you think was the victory they sought here?
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDeamon on March 20, 2019, 02:56:19 PM
Quote
I can't understand how you imagine that they would look kindly on a hoax that spits in the face of their zeal.  I can fully follow your idea that "members of the hate crime unit will zealously pursue hate crimes, even to the extent of seeing crimes where none exists" - I don't see how that then leads to "but when they discover a hoax will cover it up".

I think the idea is that they wouldn't discover the hoax because they wouldn't look for one. I find that unlikely. Even if you assume the FBI would never do any of those things, to believe this scenario you only have to think that Smollet thinks that's what will happen. He is the only one that knows there is no crime, so he could complain to family and friends that the investigation is going nowhere, that he isn't being taken seriously, and then the whole chain gets started without conspiracy.

If you go with the theory that the Hate Crimes investigation unit in the FBI/DoJ believe "Blacks cannot be racist," it also is possible that those same people would not aggressively pursue high profile fake hate crimes unless they were simply left with no other choice. "Because of the harm that would be done from a high profile case being demonstrated as having been faked." Better to simply shelve the case and let it linger forever, which is what Smollet evidently wanted.

Heck, that was essentially the very same argument Smollet himself made when the initial reports came out indicating he might be a suspect. "Who would do such a thing? The harm that would be done by that..."
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Seriati on March 20, 2019, 03:08:18 PM
First, it makes me sad that so many people seem to think investigating an assault or battery claim is a federal matter rather than a state.

For hate crimes it is indeed a federal matter, and at that time in the investigation it had a number of specific elements that Smollet claimed suggested it was a hate crime.

Again, these crimes are a state matter.  You are missing my point, or rather skipping over it by begging the question.

Converting a state crime - battery - into a federal crime is a violation of the Constitution.  The federal government does not have as an enumerated power the ability to prosecute these crimes.  "Hate crimes" are a farce designed to make us overlook the gross federal power expansion.

There's nothing about an assault or battery case that is more of a federal issue than a state one.  End of story.

Quote
You've gone off on a tangent, but I'm not sure how this helps Smollet cover up his staged crime?

Why would we have to show that?  Are you of the view that his family was in on the faking?

Quote
When hate crime investigators discover a hoax, what do you think their response will be?

If they discover a hoax. 

It's rare that there is even 75% certainty on what happened.  Whether a case is a hoax, never solved, or puts the wrong person in jail can come down to what an investigator expects to see and wants to see.

If you "always believe the victim" is the FBI still looking for the white assailants?

I'm honestly not sure what happens if they realize it's most likely a hoax, but don't think they can prove it, while during the delay he gets tied into a political movement.  Do you think the FBI has a tolerance for hurting the DNC's electoral chances if Smollet gets on a stage with the leading Dem candidates because of the power of his issue?

3 years ago I'd be a lot more confident than I am now after seeing some of the crooked inner workings of the DOJ/FBI revealed.

Quote
Myself, I'd expect a wrath of god response - people doing hoaxes undermines the very serious nature of the crime.  So I'm really not clear why you think the Smollet family would think it a good idea if they were in on the hoax.

Never implied they were "in on the hoax," nor is it necessary.  They wanted to interfere with the CPD, most likely because they heard that the CPD though Smollet's story wasn't adding up.

What would their "wrath" be based on?  Lieing to the FBI?  What federal charges are implicated?  Process crimes only, because substantive criminal law isn't a federal issue.  Most likely they'd have to dump it back to Illinois.

Quote
Your further responses are rather odd, they work in the hate crime unit ... so they will cover up a hate crime hoax because ... ????????

Strawman again?  I've never once said there would be a cover up.  There doesn't have to be to just let it die. 

Quote
I can't understand how you imagine that they would look kindly on a hoax that spits in the face of their zeal.

They won't decide to accept it was a hoax.  They'll believe the victim and chalk it up to not being able to prove the case because they can't find the assailants.

Sure they'll have suspicions that he made it up, but their leanings will make it a reluctant idea at best.

Quote
You seem to have this bizarre juxtaposition - hates hate crime but will aide and abet a hate crime hoax to the detriment of their career and reputation.  I don't think anyone who isn't a conspiracy theorist can resolve these contradictions.

This is getting to be a bit silly on your part.   There's no plausible detriment to their career or reputation from letting the case go cold.  FBI could stay radio silent for years and then just announce the case was closed without charges (the media would just assume they never found the assailants). 

Where is the magically consequence to their career or reputation you keep asserting that we are ignoring coming from?

Do you feel shame in believing in government transparency and not seeing Hillary Clinton's server as a direct and intentional frustration of government transparency?  I doubt it.  Activists can rationalize bizarre contradictions with surprising ease.  All they'd have to do to resolve the conflict, is believe Jussie and decide they didn't catch the "guys."  That's literally it.  Just believe they were real because Jussie said so.  I mean honestly, you just lectured us in the other thread that Ford's statements on Kavanaugh are "credible" what's different here?

Quote
Quote
We don't.  We can rely on the strong implication that they knew the CPD had serious doubts and was investigating them (since Foxx told us they knew of the leaks, and we know what the leaks said).  That alone is enough to try and get them off the case.

But you still aren't explaining why the FBI wouldn't follow up and it end up even worse for Jussie?

Possible reasons have been explained several times, how am I not explaining it?

But more significantly, it's a false choice you're trying to force.  If the family knew the CPD didn't believe him, how could switching the field not be better for him in their point of view?  Whether they thought the CPD was racist/homophobic or knew Jussie's story didn't add up doesn't matter if they already knew the CPD was inclined to think it was made up.

Whether or not the FBI somehow guaranteed a win for Jussie is a red herring, when it looked like the CPD was a likely "loss." 

Quote
Quote
If the case is transferred not one person risked their career by just letting it die.

You haven't explained why they "let it die".  To the FBI this is a high profile hate crime.  There would be pressure to solve it.  Why wouldn't the hate crimes division discover it is a hoax, and zealously seek prosecution agains the hoax perpetrator?

I don't know that they would let it die.  This is just one possibility that your logic on what was going on was flawed.  If you posit it must be worse if it goes to the FBI and I show that it can easily not be then your conclusion by inference is flawed.

Since that's what you did, and that's what I did, your conclusion by inference is flawed.

Quote
I admit I am at a loss trying to see your reasoning.  The bizarre conspiracy theory makes more sense then the reasoning you have provided.

A "bizarre conspiracy theory" makes more sense than a family that hears the CPD doesn't believe their relative seeking to have the case transferred to the FBI?

In what world is it that a family's action that is completely logical based on what we know they were aware of, less sensible than a bizarre conspiracy theory?

You seem to be overly fixated on the FBI "going along with a Hoax," which is the conspiracy theory rather than what I actually said.  That's a long way to go to try and claim you must be right because the other side is pushing a conspiracy theory.

Quote
Quote
No.  It's certainly possible, but it's not the best fit for the facts we know.

Well I think you have some clarification that is needed for your reasoning to "fit the facts".  You have at least two items that seem completely contrary to human nature and rational thought.

Name them.  The only assumption I make, and it's not even necessary, is that Jussie's family probably thought the CPD was investigating Jussie rather than the crime because he's black/gay.

Not one other thing that I included isn't a fact.

Jussie's family knew about the leaks (it's clear in the texts).
We knew what the leaks were about - see first posts in this thread - therefore they did too.
The leaks implied strongly the CPD didn't believe Jussie's story.
Jussies's family pushed to have the CPD investigation shut down in favor of the FBI.

There's nothing more needed to get from A to B.  No grand secret conspiracy.  No guaranty of a Federal win.  Nothing.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on March 20, 2019, 03:49:06 PM
Quote
Converting a state crime - battery - into a federal crime is a violation of the Constitution.  The federal government does not have as an enumerated power the ability to prosecute these crimes.  "Hate crimes" are a farce designed to make us overlook the gross federal power expansion.

Does this mean that you think it was a bad idea for the federal government to get involved investigating the murders of civil rights workers in Mississippi, 1964? That's when the Civil Rights Act empowered the federal government to look into what used to be state matters. If the FBI had gotten involved, it would be under federal civil rights statutes.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Seriati on March 20, 2019, 03:53:18 PM
The maxim good cases make bad laws exists for a reason.

If every terrible circumstance justified a law that propogates a 1000 terrible results, we'd have uniformly terrible laws.

If the Federal government had not acted, would you have supported say the UN intervening based on world citizenship rights?
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: D.W. on March 20, 2019, 04:04:17 PM
Quote
Does this mean that you think it was a bad idea for the federal government to get involved investigating the murders of civil rights workers in Mississippi, 1964?
Maybe I missed something, but for this to be a relevant comparison suggests some rather ugly things about the local/state PD in this case.

Are we suggesting the family pushed for FBI involvement because the locals were knowingly covering for actual assailants?  There's a big divide between, "we think the FBI will do a better job" and this type of accusation of law enforcement corruption. 

Both aside from Crunch's implied (per my reading), "the FBI are in the family/friends/political allies' pockets; where their reach into local law enforcement was insufficient to effect corruption..."   ::)
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDeamon on March 20, 2019, 04:18:02 PM
Quote
Converting a state crime - battery - into a federal crime is a violation of the Constitution.  The federal government does not have as an enumerated power the ability to prosecute these crimes.  "Hate crimes" are a farce designed to make us overlook the gross federal power expansion.

Does this mean that you think it was a bad idea for the federal government to get involved investigating the murders of civil rights workers in Mississippi, 1964? That's when the Civil Rights Act empowered the federal government to look into what used to be state matters. If the FBI had gotten involved, it would be under federal civil rights statutes.

IIRC, and IMO, Federal involvement in those cases were possible under the 14th Amendment among other options even absent the CRA(and had even already been going on). The specific issue in play during the 1960's is the matter of local and state Law Enforcement being so rampantly corrupt in regards to criminal activity regarding minorities that the only agencies even remotely capable of being objective were Federal.

In theory, that's one part of why "Hate Crimes" have a federal statute covering them, as even up through the 1980's it wasn't entirely unreasonable to suspect multiple counties in several many, if not most, states were incapable of being objective with regards to the victim. It also provided a set of specialized resources to local law-enforcement that they wouldn't otherwise have access to.

In Smollet's case, Chicago used the FBI as "a specialized resource" but kept control of the case. Efforts to pull control of the case out from Chicago's jurisdiction and into the Federal Realm would have meant they were implying Chicago's Police Department was incapable of being objective when it came to dealing with Smollet himself, on the grounds of his racial/sexual identity.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on March 20, 2019, 04:31:14 PM
I was responding to the assertion that a state crime being converted into a federal crime is a violation of the Constitution, which means it should never happen. I was curious about testing whether that was an absolute, as it would have to be if it were a Constitutional issue.

It is a separate question as to whether this ought to have been one of those cases, once one assumes that there are valid applications. I completely agree that this shouldn't be one of those cases, and it wasn't.

Although it should be noted that Chicago PD doesn't have a great track record with minorities, there's nothing that suggested that they were not being thorough and professional.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on March 20, 2019, 04:50:59 PM
Well, it seems I misread the whole Smollet thing from the beginning, right? I think you just don't like it that you're always on the wrong side of this.

I've pretty much never been on the wrong side.  I didn't offer any opinion on the Smollett case until I suggested my belief that he was a psychopath doing it to revive his career.  So you have misremembered or hallucinated me "being on the wrong side".

Quote
Why would Smollet's relative consider interfering with the investigation to take it away from the current CPD team and put it in someone else's hands "a huge victory"? What do you think was the victory they sought here?

Again, you are saying "interfering" - but seeking escalation to a well known superior investigative team is not "interfering".  The FBI is well known to have superior competence to city police.  They are the most skilled and respected investigators in the world.  If you want the best of the best doing the job, it is indeed a "huge victory".

So, in your opinion - are the FBI of generally superior competence and resources compared to a local police force for investigating?  Do you think that the majority of the public feels that way?  If so, it should be obvious that anyone who wants the best investigators on the job would view it as a "victory".
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on March 20, 2019, 05:05:42 PM
Quote
Well, it seems I misread the whole Smollet thing from the beginning, right? I think you just don't like it that you're always on the wrong side of this.

Actually, I read back through here, and I don't see where anybody challenged your prediction or defended Smollett's version of the event.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDeamon on March 20, 2019, 05:20:31 PM
So, in your opinion - are the FBI of generally superior competence and resources compared to a local police force for investigating?  Do you think that the majority of the public feels that way?  If so, it should be obvious that anyone who wants the best investigators on the job would view it as a "victory".

Define "local" in this context?

Compared to NYPD, and CPD? They're actually likely to be reasonably comparable in terms of capability, even if the extent of the respective legal authority differs.

Now if we're talking the County Sheriff's department in Mayberry, North Carolina that's a different matter.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on March 20, 2019, 05:27:41 PM

Again, these crimes are a state matter.  You are missing my point, or rather skipping over it by begging the question.

Converting a state crime - battery - into a federal crime is a violation of the Constitution.  The federal government does not have as an enumerated power the ability to prosecute these crimes.  "Hate crimes" are a farce designed to make us overlook the gross federal power expansion.

There's nothing about an assault or battery case that is more of a federal issue than a state one.  End of story.

It is if it has the elements of a hate crime.  That makes it automatically Federal jurisdiction.  You don't think the law is constitutional - the Supreme Court disagrees.  The law, as written and enforced and adjudicated - is that the FBI have jurisdiction in a hate crime. 

Quote
Why would we have to show that?  Are you of the view that his family was in on the faking?

No, I'm not, but that was Crunch's entire premise - that the family was in on it, that a lawyer with ties to the Obama's was in on the coverup.  Did you read what I was responding to?

Quote
If they discover a hoax. 

It's rare that there is even 75% certainty on what happened.  Whether a case is a hoax, never solved, or puts the wrong person in jail can come down to what an investigator expects to see and wants to see.

I can't see why they wouldn't.  It isn't like the Chicago PD did any super sleuthing.  They got the camera footage and traced the only possible suspects - exactly as any other investigator would have.

Quote
If you "always believe the victim" is the FBI still looking for the white assailants?

I'm honestly not sure what happens if they realize it's most likely a hoax, but don't think they can prove it, while during the delay he gets tied into a political movement.  Do you think the FBI has a tolerance for hurting the DNC's electoral chances if Smollet gets on a stage with the leading Dem candidates because of the power of his issue?

3 years ago I'd be a lot more confident than I am now after seeing some of the crooked inner workings of the DOJ/FBI revealed.

Not sure how to respond, you seem rational and then head off to the land of crazy conspiracy theorists.

Quote
Never implied they were "in on the hoax," nor is it necessary.  They wanted to interfere with the CPD, most likely because they heard that the CPD though Smollet's story wasn't adding up.

What would their "wrath" be based on?  Lieing to the FBI?  What federal charges are implicated?  Process crimes only, because substantive criminal law isn't a federal issue.  Most likely they'd have to dump it back to Illinois.

Hoax reports of a federal crime are a federal crime itself.

Quote
Strawman again?  I've never once said there would be a cover up.  There doesn't have to be to just let it die.

"Letting it die" is a cover up.

Quote
They won't decide to accept it was a hoax.  They'll believe the victim and chalk it up to not being able to prove the case because they can't find the assailants.

Sure they'll have suspicions that he made it up, but their leanings will make it a reluctant idea at best.

So their biases are so severe it will make them utterly incompetent, incapable of the extremely basic investigation skills demonstrated by the Chicago PD?  Seriously???????

Quote
This is getting to be a bit silly on your part.   There's no plausible detriment to their career or reputation from letting the case go cold.  FBI could stay radio silent for years and then just announce the case was closed without charges (the media would just assume they never found the assailants). 

Where is the magically consequence to their career or reputation you keep asserting that we are ignoring coming from?

A hate crime against a celebrity who is a minority.  That means that it will be persued by the press on a regular basis and by the African Ameican community, that there will be pressure from the public, including wealthy and powerful people to get it solved.

Quote
Do you feel shame in believing in government transparency and not seeing Hillary Clinton's server as a direct and intentional frustration of government transparency?

I do think that Hillary Clinton's actions were a direct and intentional frustration of government transparency.  I've stated that before.  I'm not sure why I should feel any shame - my beliefs are fully consistent.  I've called for very strict laws with serious teeth, but those laws didn't exist - so it was something entirely predictable.

Quote
I doubt it.  Activists can rationalize bizarre contradictions with surprising ease.  All they'd have to do to resolve the conflict, is believe Jussie and decide they didn't catch the "guys."  That's literally it.  Just believe they were real because Jussie said so.

Who are the activists you are refering to?  Are the FBI agents now 'activists'?  Your not making much sense.

Quote
But more significantly, it's a false choice you're trying to force.  If the family knew the CPD didn't believe him, how could switching the field not be better for him in their point of view?  Whether they thought the CPD was racist/homophobic or knew Jussie's story didn't add up doesn't matter if they already knew the CPD was inclined to think it was made up.

Whether or not the FBI somehow guaranteed a win for Jussie is a red herring, when it looked like the CPD was a likely "loss."

If they were in on the hoax, escalating to the FBI is a garunteed worse loss.  I can't believe you think that going from a probably misdemeanor with probation as worse case scenario to lying to federal agents and the potential felonies and serious penalties can be a "win".  It is perhaps one of the most irrational things you can believe.

Quote
I don't know that they would let it die.  This is just one possibility that your logic on what was going on was flawed.  If you posit it must be worse if it goes to the FBI and I show that it can easily not be then your conclusion by inference is flawed.

No, only if there is an extremely probable outcome of them "letting it die", can you posit it as a reason to think there could be a positive outcome by escalting.

Quote
Since that's what you did, and that's what I did, your conclusion by inference is flawed.

No, if there is a 1 in 10 chance of them "letting it die" or other outcome that benefits Jussie, and 9 in 10 chance they discover the hoax and come down hard, it is never rational to escalate it.  You seem to be arguing as if letting it die or other positive outcome for Jussie is a likely outcome without any justification.

Quote
A "bizarre conspiracy theory" makes more sense than a family that hears the CPD doesn't believe their relative seeking to have the case transferred to the FBI?

I assumed you were making Crunches argument - that they were escalating because the family was in on the hoax, rather than they were escalating because they wanted the best possible investigators.  The whole "they were seeking to escalate so that the FBI would let it die" argument only makes sense if they were in on the hoax (which I was expressing doesn't at all make sense since any rational person would expect the FBI to be more competent and have more severe penalties and so the last thing you'd want is to escalate it to the FBI).

Quote
You seem to be overly fixated on the FBI "going along with a Hoax," which is the conspiracy theory rather than what I actually said.  That's a long way to go to try and claim you must be right because the other side is pushing a conspiracy theory.

Ok, I misunderstood because you seemed to be trying to argue that Crunch's conspiracy theory was correct.  My apologies for the confusion.  Can we agree that "if they knew about the hoax, escalating to the FBI is an utterly insane and moronic move that no savy lawyer, savy prosecutor, or family member with half a brain would think is a good idea, let alone a 'victory'"?
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on March 20, 2019, 06:02:46 PM
Define "local" in this context?

Compared to NYPD, and CPD? They're actually likely to be reasonably comparable in terms of capability, even if the extent of the respective legal authority differs.

Fair enough, definitely not my perspective.  Police tend to be working more cases and with less resources per case.  Also I'd be shocked if the average detective is not a much poorer investigator - they get very little training on investigation (a 3 week/15 day "criminal investigator" course), whereas FBI agents get extensive and intensive investigation training (a 20 week course), and FBI has far stricter recruiting.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Seriati on March 20, 2019, 06:15:42 PM
I was responding to the assertion that a state crime being converted into a federal crime is a violation of the Constitution, which means it should never happen. I was curious about testing whether that was an absolute, as it would have to be if it were a Constitutional issue.

Things are rarely as clear cut as you might like in this area.  I'd suggest taking a read on the expansion over time of the Federal police power.  Wiki has a very basic intro https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_power_(United_States_constitutional_law) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_power_(United_States_constitutional_law)) about what the police power is.

In a nut shell though, the Feds don't have a general police power.  They've been a decades long march to ignoring that, usually by expansion in relation to commerce.  Using civil rights as a lever to expand is actually more troubling.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Seriati on March 20, 2019, 06:21:04 PM
Ok, I misunderstood because you seemed to be trying to argue that Crunch's conspiracy theory was correct.  My apologies for the confusion.  Can we agree that "if they knew about the hoax, escalating to the FBI is an utterly insane and moronic move that no savy lawyer, savy prosecutor, or family member with half a brain would think is a good idea, let alone a 'victory'"?

If they knew it was a Hoax, then the only reason they'd want to get it to the FBI is if the conspiracy theory was correct.

I haven't seen anything that indicates they knew it was a hoax, only that they knew the CPD was looking like it was turning on Jussie.  Again, that's why I posited the far more reasonable theory that they thought CPD was doing so because of racial animus or anti-gay sentiment.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDeamon on March 20, 2019, 06:31:08 PM
Ok, I misunderstood because you seemed to be trying to argue that Crunch's conspiracy theory was correct.  My apologies for the confusion.  Can we agree that "if they knew about the hoax, escalating to the FBI is an utterly insane and moronic move that no savy lawyer, savy prosecutor, or family member with half a brain would think is a good idea, let alone a 'victory'"?

If they knew it was a Hoax, then the only reason they'd want to get it to the FBI is if the conspiracy theory was correct.

I haven't seen anything that indicates they knew it was a hoax, only that they knew the CPD was looking like it was turning on Jussie.  Again, that's why I posited the far more reasonable theory that they thought CPD was doing so because of racial animus or anti-gay sentiment.

That said, if the conspiracy theory was correct, someone with "deep enough connections" into the former Obama Admin would be able to find out if "the right people" were involved in the Federal Side of the investigation in order to kill it "if things went wrong."

As the person tied to the Obama Admin evidently didn't follow through, either their connections(conspiracy) came back saying that it wouldn't/couldn't "work out" at that point, or other more benign reasons led to the case staying in control of CPD.

Overall, I think the conspiracy angle has a very low chance of being correct, but it is only just barely within the realm of possible, even if it isn't particularly probable.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on March 20, 2019, 06:57:44 PM
That said, if the conspiracy theory was correct, someone with "deep enough connections" into the former Obama Admin would be able to find out if "the right people" were involved in the Federal Side of the investigation in order to kill it "if things went wrong."

Or have them murdered, if you want to buy into the deepest conspiracy theories about powerful Democrats.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDeamon on March 20, 2019, 07:10:04 PM
Or have them murdered, if you want to buy into the deepest conspiracy theories about powerful Democrats.

Those deep state actors only dwell in and around Washington or New York. Chicago would only happen if they'd either screwed up somewhere, or were working their way up to being one of the Washington or NYC types.  8)
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: D.W. on March 20, 2019, 07:34:51 PM
That said, if the conspiracy theory was correct, someone with "deep enough connections" into the former Obama Admin would be able to find out if "the right people" were involved in the Federal Side of the investigation in order to kill it "if things went wrong."

Or have them murdered, if you want to buy into the deepest conspiracy theories about powerful Democrats.
If yer going to roll with conspiracy theories, I say go all in and make it as crazy-entertaining as possible.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on March 20, 2019, 07:55:07 PM
That said, if the conspiracy theory was correct, someone with "deep enough connections" into the former Obama Admin would be able to find out if "the right people" were involved in the Federal Side of the investigation in order to kill it "if things went wrong."

Or have them murdered, if you want to buy into the deepest conspiracy theories about powerful Democrats.
If yer going to roll with conspiracy theories, I say go all in and make it as crazy-entertaining as possible.

Deep state Muslim Pedophile Journalist plans to kill the investigation, then write an endless series of articles condemning the attack and order a Dossier in order to pin it on Trump. He plans to win a Pulitzer and help Smollett write a book about the experience, which will get made into motion picture starring Jusse Smollett and directed by a member of the Democratic Party Pedophile Ring. This picture will earn such critical acclaim that it will corrupt millions of kids into wanting to be gay like Jusse. The picture will be distributed for indoctrination in all of the public schools across the land.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on March 26, 2019, 11:36:33 AM
Quote
Jussie Smollett will not be prosecuted for allegedly faking a racial attack, because all charges have been dropped!!!

Jussie and his lawyers ran to court Tuesday morning in Chicago, where he was facing 16 felony counts of lying to police in the alleged racial and homophobic attack.

Jussie will surrender his $10,000 bond. We're told he has agreed to perform community service. But that's it. The case is over.

So pretty much a free pass for this jerk.

From TMZ:
Quote
We're told the State's Attorney, Kim Foxx, told Chicago police she was dropping the case because Jussie would have only gotten community service if convicted and she said he has already performed community service so there is no point in prosecuting him. We could not find any record of Smollett doing community service.
We're told Chicago police are "furious" and feel something untoward is going on with Kim Foxx.

Must be nice to be in a protected class with good political connections and not have any real consequences for your actions. $10,000 and "community service". Whatever

The records in the case are to be sealed, per judges order.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: D.W. on March 26, 2019, 11:45:55 AM
So faking a hate crime is no big deal?  Someone must have panicked when someone asked if they really wanted to make it illegal to beat yourself?

I don't get this at all.  The same rational that makes "hate crimes" carry a harsher sentence should apply to someone trying to leverage that label for publicity... right?

I guess that's just the way the media game is played, good to see our courts are on board with the new reality.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on March 26, 2019, 11:48:36 AM
Foxx says he performed community service for something else so no big deal. WTF? How does that have any bearing on new crimes he committed?

I figured a plea deal would be the end result but, damn, he should have had to plea guilty to something. If he's an innocent victim, why's he paying a $10,000 "fine". This is an insanely light plea deal for him.

There should be an investigation of Foxx over this.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on March 26, 2019, 11:59:07 AM
Rafer Weigel, the local reporter that kicked ass on this story tweets:
Quote
I can tell you that  @Chicago_Police are furious over SA Kim Foxx’s decision to drop all charges against #JussieSmollett

Wow, just unreal.

Of course, how's this play against the backdrop of national stories when someone directly connected to Obama's team get off after so obviously lying to police?
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: D.W. on March 26, 2019, 12:14:13 PM
Reading a bit more on this.  I'll be curious to see if they continue an investigation against the "real perpetrators".

Quote
While many were quick to rush to judgement before hearing the actual truth, we are grateful that the truth about Jussie has come to light. We look forward to bringing the real perpetrators to justice.
-Smollett’s spokeswoman Anne Kavanaugh
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Fenring on March 26, 2019, 12:23:07 PM
This will be a good litmus test of sincerity: whoever legitimately believes in the notion of prosecuting hate crimes (and I won't speak for or against it) should be damanding serious sanction against anyone undermining trust in that process, and abusing the law and the public eye to make mock of real hate crimes. We may well call into question that sincerity if "one of their own" isn't held to task in the public's opinin for this breach; then it would become more clear that it's not about justice but about waging war on the other team.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on March 26, 2019, 12:52:53 PM
I don't get this at all.  The same rational that makes "hate crimes" carry a harsher sentence should apply to someone trying to leverage that label for publicity... right?

While I wish false allegations of serious crimes received severe penalties, I didn't expect him to get anything but community service from the beginning unless it went to the FBI.  Not because I expected Smollet to receive special treatment, but rather it is extremely rare for anyone who falsifies a crime to get anything but community service unless they are a repeat offender or unless it resulted in death or serious bodily harm, etc.  The rationale appears to be that vigorously prosecuting false reports dissuades filing real reports.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on March 26, 2019, 12:53:59 PM
Now I believe that there was inappropriate influence on prosecutors. The FBI thing could have been innocent, but this is bald political pressure and a failure of the criminal justice system. Chicago reaffirms the top spot for most corrupt city (https://www.foxnews.com/us/chicago-is-most-corrupt-big-city-illinois-third-most-corrupt-state-in-country-study-finds).
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on March 26, 2019, 01:02:10 PM
This will be a good litmus test of sincerity: whoever legitimately believes in the notion of prosecuting hate crimes (and I won't speak for or against it) should be damanding serious sanction against anyone undermining trust in that process, and abusing the law and the public eye to make mock of real hate crimes.

Unfortunately most people don't seem to reason like this.  A similar parallel exists in opinions in prosecuting false allegations of rape.  Or for that matter supporting criminalizing abortion and also opposing access to birth control and sex education while also despising women who are on welfare.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on March 26, 2019, 01:14:10 PM
Now I believe that there was inappropriate influence on prosecutors. The FBI thing could have been innocent, but this is bald political pressure and a failure of the criminal justice system. Chicago reaffirms the top spot for most corrupt city (https://www.foxnews.com/us/chicago-is-most-corrupt-big-city-illinois-third-most-corrupt-state-in-country-study-finds).

He likely received the same sentence that anyone else who filed a false report would receive unless he was a repeat offender or his actions resulted in death, etc. 

See this discussion from a different state and lawyer,

Quote
Criminal attorney Joseph Delamater said Indiana and Illinois differ slightly as it relates to filing a false police report. He said if somebody of celebrity status were to commit this sort of crime in Indiana, the likelihood of jail time is low.

He said at its core filing a false police report is a pretty low level offense starting at a class b misdemeanor in Indiana; which is punishable from 0 to 180 days in jail.

He said there’s a small subsection of the obstruction of justice statutes that may allow for a prosecutor to charge it as a level 6 felony.

"Typically Indiana's obstruction of justice statutes are focused more on active investigations and active criminal prosecutions. Here, the alleged criminal act occurred before an investigation actually occurred, so that would be subject to a strong defense attorney’s attack," Attorney Joseph Delamater said.

https://cbs4indy.com/2019/02/21/indy-attorney-explains-repercussions-of-filing-false-police-report-following-smollett-arrest/

The allegation was for misdeamor assault and battery, thus at the state level - the maximum charge that could be brought was a misdemeanor.  There were not (contrary to Crunch's claim) any felony charges available at the state level.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on March 26, 2019, 01:17:07 PM
Regardless of the penalty, the point is that he never had to admit guilt, which should be a bare minimum.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on March 26, 2019, 01:24:38 PM
Reading a bit more on this.  I'll be curious to see if they continue an investigation against the "real perpetrators".

Quote
While many were quick to rush to judgement before hearing the actual truth, we are grateful that the truth about Jussie has come to light. We look forward to bringing the real perpetrators to justice.
-Smollett’s spokeswoman Anne Kavanaugh

That may be the biggest thing that made me think he should get hammered. He was literally ready to let someone else go down for this, and apparently, he still is.

Of course, that's the end of the investigation. The "real perps" will never be found because CPD knows the score (and so do we all). But you watch, Smollett is going to play the victim card over and over again on this and you know what - he'll get treated as though he is a victim.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: NobleHunter on March 26, 2019, 01:26:07 PM
I'd like to point out that if Chicago is corrupt, doesn't that place doubt on the police force's integrity as well?
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on March 26, 2019, 01:27:08 PM
There were not (contrary to Crunch's claim) any felony charges available at the state level.

From NBC (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/empire-actor-jussie-smollett-indicted-16-felony-counts-grand-jury-n981236)

Quote
"Empire" actor Jussie Smollett has been indicted by a grand jury in Chicago on 16 felony counts after allegedly lying to police about being the victim of a racist and homophobic hate crime, NBC News confirmed Friday.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on March 26, 2019, 02:01:16 PM
Quote
A furious Mayor Emanuel calls SA Kim Foxx’s decision to drop charges against #JussieSmollett a “white wash of justice...and it’s just wrong. Full stop.” Adding it sends the clear message that for those who have political influence a different code of justice exists for them.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on March 26, 2019, 02:13:30 PM
I'd like to point out that if Chicago is corrupt, doesn't that place doubt on the police force's integrity as well?

Sure. But I don't see a corruption angle with their actions. Somebody paid them to manufacture evidence against Smollett? To leak the evidence to the press? Somebody put political pressure on them to disprove Jusse's story? They were extorting Jusse by hanging false evidence over his head, and when he didn't pay they released it?
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on March 26, 2019, 02:19:38 PM
And this is why CNN is total horse*censored*. From Brian Stelter on Twitter:

Quote
Cool. Were you there that night? Smollett's camp says he was the victim of a hate crime. The police dispute that. There isn't video of the alleged attack. Thus, we may never know what really happened.

Smollett said his "attackers" were white. Now his attorney says they're the Nigerian brothers. The prosecutors *STILL* concede that his volunteer service & bond forfeiture is "just disposition," indicating that they continue to view him as culpable of some offense. The Nigerian brothers are on video buying all the crap used in this hoax, they got the check, all that, and this is the take from CNN's crack team.

No video, no crime, you know, like there was for those Covington kids. Unbelievable.

The police press conference was crazy, they know they got him. Rahm Emanuel knows they got him. It's just unreal this guy will skate, claim innocence, and CNN talking heads will provide him cover.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on March 26, 2019, 02:27:42 PM
We may never know what happened. Which of the two brothers punched him first? Closed fist or open fist? Did he cry out in pain or take it in silence? Were they planning to meet up later and was he going to pay for the first round? Who had the idea for draping a noose around his neck, and why did they think that would make the case more compelling? What brand of bleach did they use?

He really should have paid a writer on his show to help him out with some of the plot points.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: NobleHunter on March 26, 2019, 02:32:39 PM
Sure. But I don't see a corruption angle with their actions. Somebody paid them to manufacture evidence against Smollett? To leak the evidence to the press? Somebody put political pressure on them to disprove Jusse's story? They were extorting Jusse by hanging false evidence over his head, and when he didn't pay they released it?

To screw over the n***** f*****?

It just seems a little odd to me to take the CP's word as gospel while decrying the city's habit of corruption.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on March 26, 2019, 02:37:36 PM
Sure. But I don't see a corruption angle with their actions. Somebody paid them to manufacture evidence against Smollett? To leak the evidence to the press? Somebody put political pressure on them to disprove Jusse's story? They were extorting Jusse by hanging false evidence over his head, and when he didn't pay they released it?

To screw over the n***** f*****?

It just seems a little odd to me to take the CP's word as gospel while decrying the city's habit of corruption.

They have a metric *censored* ton of evidence. We don't have to take them at their word, the videos buying the hats and rope were out there. The brothers have admitted. Jussie's lawyer confirmed the brother's participation. CPD's word and it's value are the least of the evidence here.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on March 26, 2019, 03:39:35 PM
Corruption is not the same thing as bias. Corruption is political favors, direct bribes, or extortion.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on March 26, 2019, 06:30:05 PM
Ok, here’s the community service

Quote
Part of Smollett's community service for Rainbow Push included 8 hours of service on March 23rd. And 8 hours of service on March 25th. Service included working in the bookstore, critiquing in the broadcast studio and speaking to students and parents who visited.

16 hours.  Working in a bookstore, talking to fans. Wow, serious sentence there, enough to get you a free pass to commit multiple felonies.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on March 26, 2019, 09:54:40 PM
Quote
BREAKING: Michelle Obama knew Jussie Smollett very well and Michelle’s former Chief of Staff Tina Tchen reached out to Kim Foxx about the Smollett case. This is now under investigation.

My schadenboner may never go down if this happens.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on March 27, 2019, 02:16:48 AM
Ok, here’s the community service

Quote
Part of Smollett's community service for Rainbow Push included 8 hours of service on March 23rd. And 8 hours of service on March 25th. Service included working in the bookstore, critiquing in the broadcast studio and speaking to students and parents who visited.

16 hours.  Working in a bookstore, talking to fans. Wow, serious sentence there, enough to get you a free pass to commit multiple felonies.

I agree that 16 hours of community service seems ridiculously light (although if other false reports of misdemeanors have had similar sentences then it would be incorrect to sentence him more simply because he is famous).  I am curious where you get the source for the claim of 'multiple felonies' - as far as I can tell under state law he committed only misdemeanors (a false report about a misdemeanor is a misdemeanor).
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Fenring on March 27, 2019, 06:25:30 AM

I agree that 16 hours of community service seems ridiculously light (although if other false reports of misdemeanors have had similar sentences then it would be incorrect to sentence him more simply because he is famous).

I'm not sure I agree with that. If part of the actual weight of the crime was the very fact that he was famous - using his fame to leverage the crime - then his fame would be an aggravating factor, I would imagine, and not irrelevant to the sentencing. It's like using a more lethal weapon in an assault, where in this case the assault was on the public trust.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: D.W. on March 27, 2019, 09:16:07 AM
Ok, here’s the community service

Quote
Part of Smollett's community service for Rainbow Push included 8 hours of service on March 23rd. And 8 hours of service on March 25th. Service included working in the bookstore, critiquing in the broadcast studio and speaking to students and parents who visited.

16 hours.  Working in a bookstore, talking to fans. Wow, serious sentence there, enough to get you a free pass to commit multiple felonies.

I agree that 16 hours of community service seems ridiculously light (although if other false reports of misdemeanors have had similar sentences then it would be incorrect to sentence him more simply because he is famous).  I am curious where you get the source for the claim of 'multiple felonies' - as far as I can tell under state law he committed only misdemeanors (a false report about a misdemeanor is a misdemeanor).
First, I too, even this morning, heard NPR note "multiple felonies", so he's not just plucking that out of the air.

Second, "because he is famous" is no reason to do anything.  (Though frequently is a reason used to give special treatment.)  What may be relevant though is the crime's designation as a potential "hate crime".  After all, that designation serves to increase the severity of another crime in terms of sentencing/fines.  Why shouldn't it be a double edged sword?  Why wouldn't minority/religious rights groups want those who serve to trivialize or spread doubt regarding crimes targeting them punished more harshly?  I don't get how you can believe hate crimes are necessary and NOT believe that those who create hoaxes should also face harsher punishment than a typical false report penalty? 
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: rightleft22 on March 27, 2019, 11:12:24 AM
Nothing about this story makes sense to me.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on March 27, 2019, 03:08:05 PM
Quote
What may be relevant though is the crime's designation as a potential "hate crime".  After all, that designation serves to increase the severity of another crime in terms of sentencing/fines.  Why shouldn't it be a double edged sword?  Why wouldn't minority/religious rights groups want those who serve to trivialize or spread doubt regarding crimes targeting them punished more harshly?  I don't get how you can believe hate crimes are necessary and NOT believe that those who create hoaxes should also face harsher punishment than a typical false report penalty?

More to the point, when people heard about this attack, they would have felt threatened just as if it were a real attack. In that sense, it was equally impactful to the community, and caused definitive harm. Letting Smollett off in that context, is like letting an actual perpetrator of a hate crime off easy.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Seriati on March 27, 2019, 04:29:03 PM
Everything about this has been crazy from the start.  I just can't understand using an "emergency" hearing to resolve this and immediately sealing the file, all without an admission of guild, absent the "crazy conspiracy" theories being right.  Especially, when you have Rahm and the CPD immediately come out and contradict that he's innocent, when you even apparently have the prosecutors say he's guilty.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: scifibum on March 27, 2019, 04:44:23 PM
Either the prosecutor is omitting something crucial in his explanations about this, or he has the worst judgment imaginable. 10k and a few hours of service is a ridiculously light penalty, but would be far easier to understand it if came with an admission of guilt. But it's not even a plea deal - I'm not even sure it meets due process requirements.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on March 27, 2019, 04:51:07 PM
Nothing about this story makes sense to me.

But you know what would put it into a sensical framework?

Quote
BREAKING: Michelle Obama knew Jussie Smollett very well and Michelle’s former Chief of Staff Tina Tchen reached out to Kim Foxx about the Smollett case. This is now under investigation.

Lots of pictures with the Obama's, lot of comments out there about being good buddies (google it). It's not hard to think that Michelle was talking to Tchen about it and what could be done to help out her bestie. The person who'd just recused themselves from the case suddenly jumping back in, cutting him loose without any real penalty, immediately sealing everything so there's a solid cover-up, as conspiracy theories go it's got legs.  ???
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: D.W. on March 27, 2019, 05:02:35 PM
IDK how that makes sense of this.  If it's corruption to get him off the hook, this was a botched effort to exonerate him.  I guess if they "did him the favor" of saving him from actually serving time it's a... win?

With friends like these...
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: rightleft22 on March 27, 2019, 05:21:11 PM
Quote
BREAKING: Michelle Obama knew Jussie Smollett very well and Michelle’s former Chief of Staff Tina Tchen reached out to Kim Foxx about the Smollett case. This is now under investigation.
OMG of course its the evil Obama's  - Black man bad and stupid
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on March 27, 2019, 05:24:06 PM
Quote
BREAKING: Michelle Obama knew Jussie Smollett very well and Michelle’s former Chief of Staff Tina Tchen reached out to Kim Foxx about the Smollett case. This is now under investigation.
OMG of course its the evil Obama's  - Black man bad and stupid

Are you saying Michelle O is a man? I've heard that one before too.  What a time to be alive.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: rightleft22 on March 27, 2019, 05:33:35 PM
Michelle is a woman but everyone knows its only men that matter and makes the decisions
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDeamon on March 27, 2019, 06:01:41 PM
Quote
BREAKING: Michelle Obama knew Jussie Smollett very well and Michelle’s former Chief of Staff Tina Tchen reached out to Kim Foxx about the Smollett case. This is now under investigation.
OMG of course its the evil Obama's  - Black man bad and stupid

Are you saying Michelle O is a man? I've heard that one before too.  What a time to be alive.

Which is how Michelle's female friend "pulled strings" to make it go away, while President Obama's buddy, the Mayor of Chicago is left all kinds of torqued off.

But he's a white guy, and a Jew, IIRC, so he doesn't matter.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: yossarian22c on March 28, 2019, 07:51:02 AM
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/27/707247716/making-sense-of-the-smollett-legal-drama-whats-going-on-here (https://www.npr.org/2019/03/27/707247716/making-sense-of-the-smollett-legal-drama-whats-going-on-here)

Quote
That said, there is also the matter of the threatening letter.

According to Fox News and ABC News, the investigation into the provenance of the letter was turned over to the FBI. ABC and local media have reported that a federal probe has proceeded despite the legal tumult at city level. Federal authorities, meanwhile, have declined to publicly comment on the matter.

Looks like turning part of this over to the FBI could still end badly for Smollett.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on March 28, 2019, 07:58:25 AM
At this point, it could end badly for Kim Foxx.

She recused herself then caved to pressure from politically connected people to ignore that recusal and do a surprise dismissal of charges with no admission of guilt. The national district attornies association has really hammered Foxx.  The FBI and DOJ are apparently going to investigate this.

There’s some real potential here.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on March 28, 2019, 10:48:21 AM
Quote
Jussie Smollett’s Attorney: Nigerian Brothers May Have Been Wearing Whiteface During Attack

Oh man. This is just insane, they’re not going to take the W and slink away.

I wonder when the brothers will respond to this? Surely they won’t stay bought now and take the fall for it.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on March 28, 2019, 11:28:47 AM
I was mistaken there were indeed felony charges - criminal disorderly conduct for a 'false report'

Section a4,

Quote
(4) Transmits or causes to be transmitted in any manner to any peace officer, public officer or public employee a report to the effect that an offense will be committed, is being committed, or has been committed, knowing at the time of the transmission that there is no reasonable ground for believing that the offense will be committed, is being committed, or has been committed;

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=072000050K26-1

The problem with charging with him with that, is that an actual crime of battery occurred.

Quote
(a) A person commits battery if he or she knowingly without legal justification by any means (1) causes bodily harm to an individual or (2) makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with an individual.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?ActID=1876&ChapterID=53&SeqEnd=23000000&SeqStart=21100000

Since under Illinois law being paid isn't "legally justified".  So the prosecutor was likely right to drop those charges.

So we are back to 'making false statements to police'.

There might also be another charge available - since paying someone to commit a battery is probably a separate crime (though I don't know what statute to search under).

If he gets off without any serious charges I do think it will be a miscarriage of justice.  I also think that an investigation surrounding the dismissal should occur if all he ends up with is 16 hours of community service.

I do hope the FBI nail him for mail fraud and terrorist threats.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on March 28, 2019, 11:34:54 AM
She recused herself then caved to pressure from politically connected people to ignore that recusal and do a surprise dismissal of charges with no admission of guilt.

What is your source that she ignored her recusal?  I thought it was a different attorney (Magats) who dismissed the charges.  She doesn't seem to have been involved.  If she was in fact not recused, there should certainly be an investigation into her.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on March 28, 2019, 11:51:37 AM
Since under Illinois law being paid isn't "legally justified".  So the prosecutor was likely right to drop those charges.

So you're under the impression that consensual battery is still battery? So if you report your Dominatrix to the authorities, that's not a false report? And that they should be able to go to jail for hitting you with a riding crop?
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on March 28, 2019, 02:33:10 PM
So you're under the impression that consensual battery is still battery? So if you report your Dominatrix to the authorities, that's not a false report? And that they should be able to go to jail for hitting you with a riding crop?

Consent is an affirmative defense. not a statutory exclusion. Dominatrixes have in fact been charged for consensual battery,

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/23/style/bdsm-kink-consent.html

See this legal analysis regarding consent and battery.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0ddd/75e76942e97f538d09a48f6baed25e213e65.pdf

Consent doesn't make the behavior not a battery.  So it isn't a false report. However, prosecuting consensual battery often isn't in the states interest (there is generally a "public interest" test for prosecution).  Also for a prosecution to proceed requires that the prosecutor to have a reasonable belief of success - if an affirmative defense has been established via courts, then prosecutors no longer have such a reasonable belief.

There are forms of consensual battery that are prosecuted regularly for instance consensual fighting outside of sanctioned fights in sports (some states have 'mutual combat' statutory exemptions to battery).
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Fenring on March 28, 2019, 02:43:49 PM
Side-question about consensual battery: how does that work with sporting events?
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on March 28, 2019, 02:47:42 PM
Quote
Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx did not "formally" recuse herself from the Jussie Smollett case -- she only did so "colloquially," prosecutors said on Wednesday.

Riiiight. So that's how that worked. She recused herself but it wasn't a recusal recusal. See how that works?

As for the mystery relative with the connections, Malkin has it figured out:
Quote
Two weeks ago, Chicago Sun-Times reporters discovered that Obama crony pal and deep-pocketed campaign finance mega-bundler Tina Tchen had inserted herself in the investigation. Tchen texted Cook County State's Attorney Kim Foxx just three days after the incident "on behalf of Jussie Smollett and family who I know" to express "concerns." She suggested that Foxx lean on Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson to yield to the FBI and she shared an unidentified Smollett's family member's cellphone number with Foxx.

Foxx texted back that she had done as requested and that Chief Johnson was "going to make the ask." The unidentified relative rejoiced: "OMG this would be a huge victory."

Only after Foxx meddled did she recuse herself and name an underling to take over -- which rendered her Kabuki recusal meaningless to veteran observers of the "Crook" County criminal justice system. So, who was the Smollett relative with all the right (or rather, left) connections? Follow the trail:

--Tchen and Smollett's sister, Jurnee Smollett-Bell, joined together in March 2018 at South by Southwest in Austin to proclaim that "There Is No Time's Up Without Women Of Color."

--In May 2018, Tchen and Smollett-Bell took the stage together again -- hand-in-hand, glued at the hip -- at the United State of Women Summit in Los Angeles (where Tchen's former boss and gal pal, Michelle Obama, also appeared).

--Smollett-Bell and another sister, Jazz Smollett-Warwell, worked for the Obama campaigns in 2008 and 2012 and volunteered as tireless surrogates.

--My search of White House visitor logs shows Jurnee Smollett-Bell paying at least one personal visit to "POTUS/FLOTUS" at their residence in March 2013 while Tchen was serving as a top strategist to both Obamas.


To minimize Tchen's role in the Obamas' political lives as merely an "aide" is journalistic malpractice.

Yeah, Tchen and the Smollett family are all deeply connected to Michelle O., that explains all the photos. They're actually pretty tight, Tchen, Smollett, and Michelle.  You can see the extent of the web as Foxx got $400,000 from Soros-connected organizations in her election bid.

I guess the question now is, how much involvement did Michelle have in this?
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: D.W. on March 28, 2019, 02:50:57 PM
See this is where it goes off the rails.  If they nail him for illegal (consensual) fighting, then my opinion would swing the other way and I'd feel he is being unjustly prosecuted out of spite...

Right now I see him as some spoiled actor trying to weaponize what fame he has for more cash at the price of trivializing actual hate crimes.

Straining to punish him by any means necessary, for trying, and getting away with it?  That's also reprehensible.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on March 28, 2019, 02:54:56 PM
OH MY GOD, I'm literally giggling

Quote
NEW: Jussie Smollett's legal team fires back: "It is the Mayor and the Police Chief who owe Jussie - owe him an apology - for dragging an innocent man's character through the mud. Jussie has paid enough."

Smollett feels he's owed an apology? Oh man, I bet it was an understood thing that Jussie would keep his stupid mouth shut and go about his business but he's just not that smart.

You know what would be hysterical? If a couple of rednecks bought some MAGA hats, a noose, bleach and just beat the crap out of Jussie, screaming "This is MAGA country!"

What's he gonna do, report it a second time? I think he would. Would CPD even take the statement?  LOL
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on March 28, 2019, 03:06:36 PM
Quote
Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx did not "formally" recuse herself from the Jussie Smollett case -- she only did so "colloquially," prosecutors said on Wednesday.

Reports are still unconfirmed that she had her fingers crossed.

As far as statutes applying or not, I'd think the grand jury should know the law. He was indicted after all. His attorney also never claimed that those charges were not in keeping with the law, instead focusing on the number of counts.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: D.W. on March 28, 2019, 04:13:19 PM
Quote
What's he gonna do, report it a second time? I think he would. Would CPD even take the statement?  LOL
I know you see this as a potential hilarious punchline to an overlong running joke... 

But this is exactly (and honestly the only reason) why I wana see the guy held accountable.   :(
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on March 28, 2019, 04:30:21 PM
Side-question about consensual battery: how does that work with sporting events?

Again. consent can be an affirmative defense, and thus prosecutors decline to prosecute unless it is egregiously out of line with reasonable expectations of what is acceptable within the sport.  It gets prosecuted occasionally but not nearly enough.  Tyson should have been prosecuted but wasn't.

Here s a case of a hockey player being found guilty for instance,

https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/story?id=100318&page=1

and more from hockey

https://toronto.citynews.ca/2016/02/09/some-notable-on-ice-incidents-that-led-to-criminal-charges/

and various discussions on the topic,

https://blogs.findlaw.com/tarnished_twenty/2014/06/biting-in-sports-how-the-law-can-bite-back.html

https://www.capitalcriminaldefense.com/blog/2016/april/can-there-be-an-assault-on-a-sports-field-/

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/sports/why-athletes-generally-don-t-face-criminal-charges-court-fights-n922866

I think a lot of people have a lot of confusion between statutory exclusions vs affirmative defenses.  Just like fair use is an affirmative defense in copyright violation.  Even more confusing is that something can be an affirmative defense in one state or a statutory exclusion in another which can also differ yet again at the federal level.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on March 28, 2019, 05:27:01 PM
Quote
I think a lot of people have a lot of confusion between statutory exclusions vs affirmative defenses.  Just like fair use is an affirmative defense in copyright violation.  Even more confusing is that something can be an affirmative defense in one state or a statutory exclusion in another which can also differ yet again at the federal level.

But the prosecutor is not going to indict if they think the defendant is going to have a viable affirmative defense, are they? It seems very odd to indict and then just wander off without getting a plea. Imagine how it would have looked if Manafort had been indicted and then never went to trial with all charges dropped. We'd immediately have smelled something fishy about it.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on March 28, 2019, 06:02:51 PM
Quote
I think a lot of people have a lot of confusion between statutory exclusions vs affirmative defenses.  Just like fair use is an affirmative defense in copyright violation.  Even more confusing is that something can be an affirmative defense in one state or a statutory exclusion in another which can also differ yet again at the federal level.

But the prosecutor is not going to indict if they think the defendant is going to have a viable affirmative defense, are they? It seems very odd to indict and then just wander off without getting a plea. Imagine how it would have looked if Manafort had been indicted and then never went to trial with all charges dropped. We'd immediately have smelled something fishy about it.

I think you are misunderstanding what I'm saying.

The guys he hired did in fact batter him, therefore his report wasn't a false report - therefore there are no legitimate '16 counts' of felony false report.  Instead there is a single charge of battery against the guys he hired.  Those guys would then have an 'affirmative defense' against a charge of battery.

There could also be misdemeanor charges against Smollett of false statements to police - which are different from 'false report'.  Since the false statements were regarding a misdemeanor (common battery) - those statements are a misdemeanor.  Because Smollett is a "first time offender" and "unlikely to reoffend" - he is eligible for diversion - namely community service.

Regarding recusal being 'colloquial' rather than 'formal' - formal would be filing paperwork with the courts.  As long as she didn't interfere with the prosecutor who it was turned over to it shouldn't matter.  If she did in fact interfere, then I think there should be an investigation. She has stated that at the time she received the call she believed he was a victim rather than a suspect, and if she had known he was a suspect would not have gotten involved.  Also that it is common for families of victims to 'reach out' seeking escalation.

Anyway, if the theory that she interfered to reduce his sentence occurred after claiming recusal turns out to be true, then I'm all for investigating her and possible charges.

Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Fenring on March 28, 2019, 06:15:10 PM
Isn't a deliberate waste of a court's time by pretending to report an offence, with a "Fracture-style" ingenious defense prepared in advance to exonerate yourself, wouldn't this then be a case of contempt of court and be criminal in that sense? And additionally, even if the battery was consensual, isn't battery still a crime even if the person who committed it was doing so under orders? Wouldn't this fall under masterminding felonies?
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on March 28, 2019, 06:20:02 PM
Quote
The guys he hired did in fact batter him, therefore his report wasn't a false report - therefore there are no legitimate '16 counts' of felony false report. 

Christ. The charges were legitimate. You may argue unnecessary or overly aggressive but they were legitimate.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on March 28, 2019, 06:21:48 PM
Quote
Because Smollett is a "first time offender" and "unlikely to reoffend" - he is eligible for diversion - namely community service.

Smollett was not a first time offender. How do you engage this topic without knowing that? It’s in many news stories, especially the last 24 hours.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on March 28, 2019, 06:22:41 PM
Quote
Regarding recusal being 'colloquial' rather than 'formal' - formal would be filing paperwork with the courts.

Regarding recusal being 'colloquial' rather than 'formal' - there is no such thing. That was made up.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on March 28, 2019, 06:46:12 PM
Quote
The guys he hired did in fact batter him, therefore his report wasn't a false report - therefore there are no legitimate '16 counts' of felony false report. 

Christ. The charges were legitimate. You may argue unnecessary or overly aggressive but they were legitimate.

I mean that they would have to be dismissed and could not be brought to trial because a judge would be forced to dismiss them.  A competent lawyer would point out what I have and that would likely be the end of it.

Quote
Regarding recusal being 'colloquial' rather than 'formal' - there is no such thing. That was made up.

No it isn't 'made up' - the word recusal has a formal meaning and an informal meaning.  When you use it informally you are using it 'colloquially'.  If she in fact handed off the prosecution to another prosecutor and didn't interfere, but didn't file a formal recusal notice (prosecutorial disqualification) then it was an accurate statement.

Quote
Smollett was not a first time offender. How do you engage this topic without knowing that? It’s in many news stories, especially the last 24 hours.

You are right that 'first time offender' wasn't accurate I meant to write non-violent offender - he apparently gave his brothers name for a DUI stop a number of years prior.  He would have been disqualified if he were a prior drug offender, or violent - neither of which applied.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on March 28, 2019, 06:57:46 PM
Isn't a deliberate waste of a court's time by pretending to report an offence, with a "Fracture-style" ingenious defense prepared in advance to exonerate yourself, wouldn't this then be a case of contempt of court and be criminal in that sense? And additionally, even if the battery was consensual, isn't battery still a crime even if the person who committed it was doing so under orders? Wouldn't this fall under masterminding felonies?

Simple battery is a misdemeanor.  So he wouldn't be "masterminding a felony".  Contempt of court I don't think is a possibility.  The misdemeanor of "wasting police time" would be available.  I suspect, as I mentioned earlier - that there might be a charge for ordering/paying someone to commit a battery (solicitation to commit a crime) - but I'm not aware of what the penalty might be.  I've found "solicitation to commit a crime of violence" in the case of soliciting a violent felony, but can't find one for commissioning non-felony violence.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on March 28, 2019, 07:11:09 PM
I forgot to mention that he could also be charged with the misdemeanor he was soliciting.  I've looked and so far don't see any felony charges that could survive to trial (although I am not a lawyer, so it is entirely possible I've misunderstood or overlooked something).
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDeamon on March 28, 2019, 08:53:33 PM
Simple battery is a misdemeanor.  So he wouldn't be "masterminding a felony".  Contempt of court I don't think is a possibility.  The misdemeanor of "wasting police time" would be available.  I suspect, as I mentioned earlier - that there might be a charge for ordering/paying someone to commit a battery (solicitation to commit a crime) - but I'm not aware of what the penalty might be.  I've found "solicitation to commit a crime of violence" in the case of soliciting a violent felony, but can't find one for commissioning non-felony violence.

I have to wonder if he couldn't be brought under conspiracy charges by some means, given the objective of all this was to get a ratings bump on his show, and a pay increase.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDeamon on March 28, 2019, 10:09:49 PM
Oh hey, NBC News just reported that Smollet is up for an award from the NAACP in the near future.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on March 28, 2019, 10:50:41 PM
Ouch, Foxx is getting hammered.
Quote
[The Illinois Prosecutors Bar Association serves as the voice for nearly 1,000 front line prosecutors across the State who work tirelessly towards the pursuit of justice.  The events of the past few days regarding the Cook County State’s Attorney’s handling of the Jussie Smollett case is not condoned by the IPBA, nor is it representative of the honest ethical work prosecutors provide to the citizens of the State of Illinois on a daily basis.

The manner in which this case was dismissed was abnormal and unfamiliar to those who practice law in criminal courthouses across the State.  Prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges alike do not recognize the arrangement Mr. Smollett received.  Even more problematic, the State’s Attorney and her representatives have fundamentally misled the public on the law and circumstances surrounding the dismissal.

The public has the right to know the truth, and we set out to do that here.
When an elected State’s Attorney recuses herself from a prosecution, Illinois law provides that the court shall appoint a special prosecutor.  See 55 ILCS 5/3-9008(a-15).  Typically, the special prosecutor is a neighboring State’s Attorney, the Attorney General, or the State Appellate Prosecutor.  Here, the State’s Attorney kept the case within her office and thus never actually recused herself as a matter of law.

Additionally, the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office falsely informed the public that the uncontested sealing of the criminal court case was “mandatory” under Illinois law.  This statement is not accurate.  To the extent the case was even eligible for an immediate seal, that action was discretionary, not mandatory, and only upon the proper filing of a petition to seal.  See 20 ILCS 2630/5.2(g)(2).  For seals not subject to Section 5.2(g)(2), the process employed in this case by the State’s Attorney effectively denied law enforcement agencies of legally required Notice (See 20 ILCS 2630/5.2(d)(4)) and the legal opportunity to object to the sealing of the file (See 20 ILCS 2630/5.2(d)(5)).  The State’s Attorney not only declined to fight the sealing of this case in court, but then provided false information to the public regarding it.

The appearance of impropriety here is compounded by the fact that this case was not on the regularly scheduled court call, the public had no reasonable notice or opportunity to view these proceedings, and the dismissal was done abruptly at what has been called an “emergency” hearing.  To date, the nature of the purported emergency has not been publicly disclosed.  The sealing of a court case immediately following a hearing where there was no reasonable notice or opportunity for the public to attend is a matter of grave public concern and undermines the very foundation of our public court system.

Lastly, the State’s Attorney has claimed this arrangement is “available to all defendants” and “not a new or unusual practice.”  There has even been an implication it was done in accordance with a statutory diversion program.  These statements are plainly misleading and inaccurate.  This action was highly unusual, not a statutory diversion program, and not in accordance with well accepted practices of State’s Attorney initiated diversionary programs.  The IPBA supports diversion programs, and recognizes the many benefits they provide to the community, the defendant and to the prosecuting agency.  Central to any diversion program, however, is that the defendant must accept responsibility.  To be clear here, this simply was not a deferred prosecution.
/quote]
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on March 28, 2019, 11:07:34 PM
Oh hey, NBC News just reported that Smollet is up for an award from the NAACP in the near future.
Saturday. I hope he wins.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on March 29, 2019, 07:51:03 AM
It's highly unusual for both the national and state level DA associations to go after one of their own. That should make it abundantly clear that the handling by Foxx is wildly improper.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on March 29, 2019, 10:30:42 AM
I hope there is a thorough investigation.  I've no problem with her getting hammered.  Presumably the charges weren't dismissed with prejudice, and thus can be refiled.  Smollett has really dug a hole for himself with his denials of responsibility.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on March 29, 2019, 02:38:20 PM
It's highly unusual for both the national and state level DA associations to go after one of their own. That should make it abundantly clear that the handling by Foxx is wildly improper.

Let’s assume Foxx is pretty damn smart. I think that’s a safe assumption with her education and experience. She’s also a political animal, she knows how things play at this level - Soros pumps hundreds of thousands of dollars into her campaign. So there’s no way she’s surprised at the heat she’s taking and the repercussions of her giving out a fake recusal and stepping hip deep into what was already a sh1tshow and risking her career this way. No way. Not for someone she just met that is essentially radioactive at that moment.

And Tina Tchen, she’s probably even more savvy than Foxx. What got her to step into this? I know she’s friends with some of Smollett’s family but are they that good of friends that Tchen would risk this heat? I doubt it. I dunno, could be she miscalculated but I really doubt it.

So why’d they do it? Foxx didn’t take the risk for nothing. Tchen got involved for a reason.  What did Tchen offer and why or Foxx get in return for likely throwing it all away?

Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on March 29, 2019, 04:09:18 PM
Rahm Emanuel:

Quote
The only reason Jussie Smollett thought he could take advantage of a hoax about a hate crime is for the environment, the toxic environment that Donald Trump created.

It’s all Trump’s fault that Jussie did this.

Some of you should feel deeply insulted that he thought you’d go along with this.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on March 31, 2019, 10:08:55 AM
Deep in another dark corner of MAGA country, you know, Portland, Andy Ngo point out some things (https://nypost.com/2019/03/30/inside-the-suspicious-rise-of-gay-hate-crimes-in-portland/) that should sound familiar.

It very much appears that there is an epidemic of hoax hate crimes, concentrated in deep blue, Democrat, cities.

Quote
Did these crimes really happen? Wilfred Reilly, a political scientist at Kentucky State and author of the book “Hate Crime Hoax,” says the nonreporting and cinematic narrative are indications they might not have.

“If you were actually beaten by a group of homophobes, you’d go down to the precinct house before you’d go on Twitter and Facebook,” he says. Through his research, Reilly has collected more than 500 cases of American hate hoaxes concentrated mostly between 2013 and 2018.

Patterns he identifies among them are the lack of evidence, reluctance to cooperate with police, sensational claims, the presence of fundraising and the involvement of radical activists — all of which appear to be happening in Portland.

Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Fenring on March 31, 2019, 10:26:43 AM
Deep in another dark corner of MAGA country, you know, Portland, Andy Ngo point out some things (https://nypost.com/2019/03/30/inside-the-suspicious-rise-of-gay-hate-crimes-in-portland/) that should sound familiar.

It very much appears that there is an epidemic of hoax hate crimes, concentrated in deep blue, Democrat, cities.

Quote
Did these crimes really happen? Wilfred Reilly, a political scientist at Kentucky State and author of the book “Hate Crime Hoax,” says the nonreporting and cinematic narrative are indications they might not have.

“If you were actually beaten by a group of homophobes, you’d go down to the precinct house before you’d go on Twitter and Facebook,” he says. Through his research, Reilly has collected more than 500 cases of American hate hoaxes concentrated mostly between 2013 and 2018.

Patterns he identifies among them are the lack of evidence, reluctance to cooperate with police, sensational claims, the presence of fundraising and the involvement of radical activists — all of which appear to be happening in Portland.

It should come as no surprise, since both sides as of 2001 have been brought up learning that the ends justify the means, and that the actual truth doesn't matter so long as your side wins. What chance to young people have when being raised in this kind of culture?
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDeamon on March 31, 2019, 12:18:30 PM
Deep in another dark corner of MAGA country, you know, Portland, Andy Ngo point out some things (https://nypost.com/2019/03/30/inside-the-suspicious-rise-of-gay-hate-crimes-in-portland/) that should sound familiar.

Apparently an Asian author, might as well be a CIS-Gendered straight white male. Absolutely no standing with the activists, he's part of the problem. :)

This excerpt was pretty good from the article:
Quote
Those who spread the rumors were cheered for bringing “awareness” to LGBT issues. Lost in all this was any concern for the people victimized in the process.

One of the men who says he was falsely accused in the panic is Robert Zerfing, a 35-year-old Battle Ground, Wash., resident. He used to attend conservative rallies in the Portland area but has since renounced the Proud Boys for their involvement in brawls.

Jenny Bruso claimed that her partner’s attackers drove a maroon Bronco or Suburban. Doxers identified that Zerfing owned a maroon SUV and used that as evidence he was involved in the attack even though that car was repossessed three months ago. He showed me one of the many death threats he now receives.

“I guess we will find out when we pay that address a visit,” the text reads. “4 hate crimes in the last week you were involved in. Paybacks a bitch mother f–ker.”

"This hate crime victim claims to have seen your truck involved in the incident"

"My truck was repossessed months ago, it couldn't be me."

"Doesn't matter, you're still a fascist, and we know you're connected to the attacks somehow."
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on March 31, 2019, 01:02:23 PM
500 cases over six years is an epidemic?
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on March 31, 2019, 01:28:17 PM
“If you were actually beaten by a group of homophobes, you’d go down to the precinct house before you’d go on Twitter and Facebook,” he says.

Has he not met anyone under the age of 40?  Almost everyone I know who is young is more likely to post something to twitter and Facebook before they report it to the police.  The younger, the more likely.

Quote
Patterns he identifies among them are the lack of evidence, reluctance to cooperate with police, sensational claims, the presence of fundraising and the involvement of radical activists — all of which appear to be happening in Portland.

Lack of evidence is pretty common for most crimes.  Many people are reluctant to interact with police - particularly the demographics most likely to be legitimate victims of hate crimes.  I've no idea about what the individual means by 'sensational crimes'.  Hate crime victims tend to get involved with groups that support victims of the said hate crimes - does he mean they were a high profile activist beforehand (in which case I do think that is a sign of risk for being a hoax).  Is the 'all of which appear to be happening in Portland' - mean that the claims of being a victim of hate crime has an abnormally large number of reports or something else?

I'll be interested in his methodolgy, etc. perhaps he really has identificed 500 'hoaxes' - but the description for the basis of him considering a report a 'hoax' isn't very promising.

Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDeamon on March 31, 2019, 08:13:28 PM
500 cases over six years is an epidemic?

Well, when you go from what was it? 31 reported hate crimes against a Muslim/year to 93/year becoming "A national epidemic of anti-Islamic hate" I'd say about 80 to 90 false reports/year can qualify for the same label.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on April 01, 2019, 06:55:07 AM
500 cases over six years is an epidemic?

Well, when you go from what was it? 31 reported hate crimes against a Muslim/year to 93/year becoming "A national epidemic of anti-Islamic hate" I'd say about 80 to 90 false reports/year can qualify for the same label.

I wouldn't say there is an epidemic of anti Islamic hate crimes either. I would say there is a troubling rise of anti Islamic sentiment including crimes. Assuming you take this number as legitimate, I could see the argument that they are similar.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 01, 2019, 07:55:27 AM
I mentioned earlier that Smollet may yet come out ahead because of what he did when the dust clears and I'll go ahead and double down on that now. There are two factors in play. One is that just getting almost no matter how you do it can be very profitable. Look at Monica Lewinsky with her SlimFast, Weight Watchers, and diet program pitch person deals. Two is that he is a courageous hero for attacking Trump, his supporters, and Republicans in general the way he did, risking prison with his hate crime hoax. The fact that it was a hoax and he is a fraud only adds to the value of his heroic gesture. He's putting it all on the line for the cause even more than Ford did but she's a hero to the left for the same reasons. Faking a hate crime is nothing to be ashamed of anymore. Whether you are believed or not, whether your are ever exposed as a fraud or forever considered to be an innocent victim because the fraud cannot be exposed, either way you become a martyr for the cause.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: D.W. on April 01, 2019, 09:07:00 AM
While I still think you're wrong cherry, I deeply wish I could call that whole position nuts.  It seems more and more depressingly plausible every day.  :(
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: rightleft22 on April 01, 2019, 10:16:12 AM
Quote
he is a courageous hero for attacking Trump, his supporters, and Republicans in general the way he did, risking prison with his hate crime hoax. The fact that it was a hoax and he is a fraud only adds to the value of his heroic gesture.

I personal don't know anyone in real life that thinks Smollet is a hero of any kind or that faking a hate crime can in anyway be justified. 
I do suspect that the virtual world is full of virtual people that will make the arguments that you point out if only to keep everyone angry and disconnected
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: D.W. on April 01, 2019, 10:55:33 AM
Quote
I do suspect that the virtual world is full of virtual people that will make the arguments that you point out if only to keep everyone angry and disconnected
That line between virtual and actual is itself now virtual.

Places where people would once make outrageous statements for the sake of humor or getting others worked up are now gathering places for those who sincerely hold those outrageous beliefs.  People in public are sometimes now comfortable making those outrageous statements once only made online, and anonymously, and often tongue-in-cheek... 

Our caricatures of those we oppose tend to be grounded in reality.  Or at least identifiable within the fringes of surreality we all scour round the clock to prove the vileness of our opponents.

We may not know anyone who feels Jussie was a hero, but I have no doubt that if one went looking for someone who did, you could find them.  The fringe is a crazy place, where anything is possible, and exploitable.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on April 01, 2019, 12:01:35 PM
I mentioned earlier that Smollet may yet come out ahead because of what he did when the dust clears and I'll go ahead and double down on that now.

Unless there is strong evidence that his original claim is correct, or there is evidence of him being 'framed', or along similar lines where he can win a case for slander and libel  - I don't see how he can possibly come out ahead. 

Quote
Two is that he is a courageous hero for attacking Trump, his supporters, and Republicans in general the way he did, risking prison with his hate crime hoax.

The only thing I've heard from liberals is disgust and anger that he has risked delegitimizing claims of actual hate crime victims.

The only supporters he has currently are a small number LGBT who have bought into a suggestion that it was a conspiracy theory to frame him.

Quote
The fact that it was a hoax and he is a fraud only adds to the value of his heroic gesture. He's putting it all on the line for the cause even more than Ford did but she's a hero to the left for the same reasons.

People admire Ford for coming forward - there is nothing suggesting that she was in anyway attempting to make a false claim, they despise the woman who faked the claim for the same reason that they despise Smollett - fake claims let those who want to delegitimize true claims.  Only in conservative fantasies do liberals admire people who make false claims.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 01, 2019, 01:49:58 PM
I'll agree that the vast majority on the left are outraged about his hate crimes hoax but I've seen some support for him from sjws that goes beyond sympathy. Of course it is all virtual and tweets that get made into news stories but it's out there, and I'm talking about after the charges were dropped meaning after the hoax was exposed. The support before the hoax was exposed is perfectly understandable of course. Not sure why I'm having so much trouble finding it now but I just saw a story about a tweet on yahoo a couple of days ago. Part of it may be because of distrust of the Chicago Police Department and I think that was mentioned in the supportive tweet but it went a bit further than that too. Obviously nobody is going to come right out and say they support hoaxing hate crimes but there is an undercurrent to some of the support, a very small but still discernible minority of it, that goes too far in making excuses for what he did. You can hear a little of that in the Trump blaming that's coming even after the hoax was exposed.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: D.W. on April 01, 2019, 02:07:19 PM
Things are already a mess.  I think we want to avoid getting into statistical anomalies less supported than bigfoot sightings to leverage against political partisans.  ;)

Again, not saying they aren't out there.  Pretty much any absurd thing is.  But we are able to find these outliers only because of how outrageously outside the norms their views are.  That *censored* is internet gold.  Click bait mana from digital heaven. 
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDeamon on April 04, 2019, 05:20:33 PM
Oh hey, when things could not get any weirder. SPLC has been under fire lately evidently.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/apr/3/tom-cotton-calls-irs-investigate-southern-poverty-/

Quote
“Our employees deserve a workplace that reflects our highest values, and we will ensure that it happens,” the Southern Poverty Law Center said in a Tuesday statement. “The decision to name Karen as interim president is a critical step in that process.”

Conducting an “external review” of the center’s practices is Tina Tchen, onetime chief of staff to first lady Michelle Obama, who will “advise us on workplace culture issues,” Bryan Fair, board chairman of the Southern Poverty Law Center, said in the statement.

“Tina’s evaluation will continue, and we’re committed to enacting long-lasting changes following her recommendations,” Mr. Fair said. “Our employees deserve a workplace that reflects our highest values, and we will ensure that it happens.”

Her hiring set off red flags on the right. It was Ms. Tchen who contacted Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx on behalf of “Empire” star Jussie Smollett in an effort to move the case to the FBI. All charges stemming from Mr. Smollett’s purported staging of a Jan. 29 hate crime in Chicago were dropped last week.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: DJQuag on April 04, 2019, 05:44:12 PM
I mentioned earlier that Smollet may yet come out ahead because of what he did when the dust clears and I'll go ahead and double down on that now. There are two factors in play. One is that just getting almost no matter how you do it can be very profitable. Look at Monica Lewinsky with her SlimFast, Weight Watchers, and diet program pitch person deals. Two is that he is a courageous hero for attacking Trump, his supporters, and Republicans in general the way he did, risking prison with his hate crime hoax. The fact that it was a hoax and he is a fraud only adds to the value of his heroic gesture. He's putting it all on the line for the cause even more than Ford did but she's a hero to the left for the same reasons. Faking a hate crime is nothing to be ashamed of anymore. Whether you are believed or not, whether your are ever exposed as a fraud or forever considered to be an innocent victim because the fraud cannot be exposed, either way you become a martyr for the cause.

I have to ask why you think Lewinsky should be talked about in the same breath as Smollett.

I myself think they were both of age consenting adults that did an immoral thing, but even most right wing rags put the blame on Clinton.and if we're going by maturity and authority, yeah, you have to send it his way.

Lewinsky got done dirty back then in a way that wouldn't be accepted now. If she found a way to make some money off it, I'm not gonna blame her.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 05, 2019, 06:07:22 AM
The point I was trying to make there, and I accidentally left out the word famous, is that it often doesn't matter how you get famous as long as you do. It's all about eyeballs now, clicks for ads, and it doesn't matter why people click or watch as long as they do. So that's how they are tied together and the fact that their situations are nothing alike is part of the point that, again, how you get famous is irrelevant as long as you do get famous.

Now the other point about support for him wasn't me sifting through twitter to find random people posting but was reading news stories about prominent people supporting him and often not even acknowledging that he did anything wrong at all. Right here is a fine example:

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/taraji-p-henson-weighs-empire-co-star-jussie-181748114.html

Henson told USA Today last week she's "happy ... the truth has finally been set free, because I knew it all along."

And from Fox itself: In a statement to ABC News, Fox, which airs "Empire," said, "Jussie Smollett has always maintained his innocence and we are gratified on his behalf that all charges against him have been dismissed."

Factual as far as it goes, I suppose. But hardly coming down against hate crimes hoaxes.

Now we'll see if he continues to appear in the show and maybe even get a nice little salary bump out of it if their ratings go higher. If that happens, mission accomplished.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on April 05, 2019, 06:28:10 AM
Yeah. So he's getting support from the people connected with his television program, who are taking a bath as people flee the program? Because of his felonies.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 05, 2019, 06:50:49 AM
https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/436740-maxine-waters-on-jussie-smollett-its-the-correct-thing-that-the

Maxine Waters on Jussie Smollett: 'It's the correct thing that the charges were dropped'
By Tristan Lejeune - 04/01/19 12:42 PM EDT

t’s the correct thing that the charges were dropped," Waters said in a Sunday interview with "Extra" at the NAACP Image Awards. Waters was honored with the Chairman's Award, while Smollett was nominated, but lost, for his work on the Fox series.

"First of all, we probably will never know all of the details. We’ve heard a lot of information," said Waters. "No one was hurt — that is, physically, killed, shot — he never committed a crime before, he forfeited the bail and it’s this kind of situation where they close the case all over the country every day. I have learned this isn't unusual."

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Well that's her opinion and that's fine, I suppose. Not much there to discourage more hate crimes hoaxes though. It almost seems like it's not that big a deal.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on April 05, 2019, 07:49:37 AM
Waters is a dumpster fire. This situation doesn't happen all over the country every day, that's why prominent prosecutors groups have pointed out how irregular it is.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on April 05, 2019, 11:33:13 AM
Well that's her opinion and that's fine, I suppose. Not much there to discourage more hate crimes hoaxes though. It almost seems like it's not that big a deal.

General deterrence is one aspect of analysis that can be considered in whether to bring a prosecution.  They also have to consider their odds of winning at court (the attackers claiming that the person they attacked payed them to do it is a tough sell to a jury.)

Some of the 'facts' we were told earlier have proven to not have occurred, - for instance this tip

Quote
A resident or someone visiting Smollett’s Chicago apartment told the cops that they saw the actor in the elevator with Olabinjo and Abimbola Osundairo late in the night of the assault.

However,

Quote
CPD has confirmed that a tip this morning about a sighting at the residential towers of individuals involved in this alleged incident is unfounded as it was not supported by video evidence obtained by detectives.

https://deadline.com/2019/02/jussie-smollet-mark-geragos-talks-chicago-police-tip-false-1202560431/

The payment that was alleged to be for the attack was consistent with past payments to the individual for personal training, and the information on the check suggests it was expensed as personal training for an upcoming music video.

https://www.vibe.com/2019/02/jussie-smolletts-3500-payment-personal-training

So - I don't think any attorney would think that the testimony of his attackers would establish 'beyond reasonable doubt' that Smollett staged it.

The only way he could reasonably have been prosecuted is if the police had done a sting where the attackers got him on tape.

While I think it more likely than not that Smollett staged it - beyond a reasonable doubt probably isn't possible with the evidence they had.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Lloyd Perna on April 05, 2019, 12:01:30 PM
The only way he could reasonably have been prosecuted is if the police had done a sting where the attackers got him on tape.

While I think it more likely than not that Smollett staged it - beyond a reasonable doubt probably isn't possible with the evidence they had.

Do you have access to the evidence that was presented to the Grand Jury?  If not I don't know how you could jump to that conclusion.  The Police Department certainly feel like they have a case.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on April 05, 2019, 12:11:44 PM
Do you have access to the evidence that was presented to the Grand Jury?

No, but the leaks have been significant.  If they had anything damning that hasn't been leaked then I'd be rather surprised. 

Quote
If not I don't know how you could jump to that conclusion.  The Police Department certainly feel like they have a case.

Police quite frequently overestimate the strength of evidence, their understanding of prosecution isn't much better than the average lay persons - which is to say utterly atrocious.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on April 05, 2019, 02:15:47 PM
Quote
The only way he could reasonably have been prosecuted is if the police had done a sting where the attackers got him on tape.

That's not what other prosecutors are saying. It is possible that they decided that the expense of a prosecution against a rich guy wasn't going to be worth it, or it may have been political.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Seriati on April 05, 2019, 02:19:16 PM
I was mistaken there were indeed felony charges - criminal disorderly conduct for a 'false report'

Section a4,

Quote
(4) Transmits or causes to be transmitted in any manner to any peace officer, public officer or public employee a report to the effect that an offense will be committed, is being committed, or has been committed, knowing at the time of the transmission that there is no reasonable ground for believing that the offense will be committed, is being committed, or has been committed;

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=072000050K26-1

The problem with charging with him with that, is that an actual crime of battery occurred.

Quote
(a) A person commits battery if he or she knowingly without legal justification by any means (1) causes bodily harm to an individual or (2) makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with an individual.

This wasn't battery, as there wasn't bodily harm from the fake attack, nor would it have been of an insulting or provoking nature.  In any event, even if there had been a battery, like say if the brothers got carried away, it would still be a false report in that he misrepresented the actual crime that was occurring.

If you wanted to really get down on it, he could also be charged with aiding and abetting such a battery, and potentially with a number of fraud based claims to the extent he recieved any financial benefits (which even the increased media attention could qualify as).

Quote
Since under Illinois law being paid isn't "legally justified".  So the prosecutor was likely right to drop those charges.

No.  Is that your legal opinion?  It's not right.  It's possible there was a legit reason to drop the charges we didn't see, but the conclusion you're reaching above is pretty much based on misinterpretation.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Seriati on April 05, 2019, 02:22:46 PM
So you're under the impression that consensual battery is still battery? So if you report your Dominatrix to the authorities, that's not a false report? And that they should be able to go to jail for hitting you with a riding crop?

Consent is an affirmative defense. not a statutory exclusion.

Staging a battery and reporting it as a crime is not a case of "consensual battery" being the relevant crime.  Most of the examples you are providing relate to attempts to legislate morality through strained applications of battery laws, or claims based on exceeding the consent that was actually involved.  It's also completely a state law crime, which means the only really precedents are in Illinois.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Seriati on April 05, 2019, 02:26:41 PM
Side-question about consensual battery: how does that work with sporting events?

Violence within the bounds of a sporting event that is consistent with play is generally part of the assumed risk of play.  There can be (and have been) cases where the violence exceeded that which is part of the general game and someone gets prosecuted.

It rarely fits inside the definition of battery, most of which require an intent of causing an injury.  The intent in sporting events is generally to win the game or gain an advantage in the game.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Seriati on April 05, 2019, 02:35:50 PM
I think you are misunderstanding what I'm saying.

The guys he hired did in fact batter him, therefore his report wasn't a false report - therefore there are no legitimate '16 counts' of felony false report.  Instead there is a single charge of battery against the guys he hired.  Those guys would then have an 'affirmative defense' against a charge of battery.

This would not be properly charged as a battery, and failing to report the conspiracy, fraud and false statements in connection with the event would more than justify it being a false report and a felony case. 

I mean think of the contrary rule you seem to be espousing.  You are essentially saying that to avoid a felony charge of false report all one has to do is make sure your accomplisses touch you, cause then its a battery and not false.  If they don't touch you its a felony, if they do, then its not.

As much as you might think by literal and simplistic reads that the law works that way, it does not.  There was no intent to batter Jussie, there was an intent to stage a fake hate crime.  The idea that a couple of light blows without intent to harm that the "victim" paid to have struck changes that is not remotely consistent with how the laws actually work.

Quote
Regarding recusal being 'colloquial' rather than 'formal' - formal would be filing paperwork with the courts.

Is this some law in Chicago or Illinois?  Never heard of filing formal recusal paperwork with the courts.  Where did you get that?
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Fenring on April 05, 2019, 03:08:33 PM
There was no intent to batter Jussie, there was an intent to stage a fake hate crime.  The idea that a couple of light blows without intent to harm that the "victim" paid to have struck changes that is not remotely consistent with how the laws actually work.

Question about this, assuming you're correct: how would you evaluate this if, as part of the plan, the accomplices actually did beat up Jussie, in accordance with his desire to make the battery claim 'legitimate'? In other words, would having staged a real beating lend more credibility to Jussie's defence than having lied about there being a beating?
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Seriati on April 05, 2019, 03:19:06 PM
Fenring, Jussie runs into his problems when he describes a crime that didn't occur.  Effectively, he described a battery by "strangers" that never happened, failing to report an actual battery by known persons that did happen doesn't change that.  LR was conflating two separate events.

If they kicked the crap out of him and actually battered him, he'd still be guilty of the felony false report when he attributed the injuries he'd taken to parties unknown.  Intent matters, victims often refuse to identify their actual assailants, and we don't hold them up for false statements or felony charges, what Jussie is alleged to have done is fundamentally different in that he knew who the persons were and lied about it both by not identifying them, but also by asserting a completely fake criminal act by persons unknown.  And that it appears that this was the intent from the beginning.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Fenring on April 05, 2019, 03:40:49 PM
Fenring, Jussie runs into his problems when he describes a crime that didn't occur.  Effectively, he described a battery by "strangers" that never happened, failing to report an actual battery by known persons that did happen doesn't change that.  LR was conflating two separate events.

If they kicked the crap out of him and actually battered him, he'd still be guilty of the felony false report when he attributed the injuries he'd taken to parties unknown.  Intent matters, victims often refuse to identify their actual assailants, and we don't hold them up for false statements or felony charges, what Jussie is alleged to have done is fundamentally different in that he knew who the persons were and lied about it both by not identifying them, but also by asserting a completely fake criminal act by persons unknown.  And that it appears that this was the intent from the beginning.

I don't mean to get into the weeds on this, but in trying to evaluate LR's position I think we need to plumb out the actual contours of what the crime might or might not have been. For instance based on what you just wrote, we can adjust the scenario to be that Jussie authorized the assault through a third party, who then hired the attackers, thus making it true that they would be strangers to Jussie. And even better - what if Jussie was put up to it by a third party he himself didn't even know personally, and they also arranged for the attack, Jussie's involvement only being to play along and file the crime report? He would then be 'telling the truth' about being attacked, about them being strangers, and about him not being the mastermind. And yet it would still also be true that he was part of a conspiratorial hoax. So what would the crime be? I think LR's point was basically that a crime designed in a certain way might have built-in legal deniability.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Seriati on April 05, 2019, 04:05:36 PM
No, you'd still have 2 separate events.

The fake crime Jussie described.

The real event that Jussie inaccurately reported.

I don't mean to get into the weeds on this, but in trying to evaluate LR's position I think we need to plumb out the actual contours of what the crime might or might not have been.

The felony is connected to reporting a crime that didn't occur.

Quote
For instance based on what you just wrote, we can adjust the scenario to be that Jussie authorized the assault through a third party, who then hired the attackers, thus making it true that they would be strangers to Jussie.

Being strangers doesn't fix the problem.  He knows the motivation for the attack (ie, that he hired them) and yet he reports it in a manner that makes it appear they attacked him for racist, homophobic reasons.  Even if all he does is report that they "yelled slurs of that nature" he left out that he paid them to do so.

Intent is a critical part of criminal charges, and you're missing the forest for the trees, in that what he did in faking the intent is every bit as illegal as faking the physical parts of the crime.

Quote
And even better - what if Jussie was put up to it by a third party he himself didn't even know personally, and they also arranged for the attack, Jussie's involvement only being to play along and file the crime report?

Then he'd be part of a conspiracy as well.  And still guilty of the felony charges.

Quote
He would then be 'telling the truth' about being attacked, about them being strangers, and about him not being the mastermind.

He's not "telling the truth" when he intentionally omits facts known to himself that are necessary to give the statements he made their proper context.

I'm not telling the truth when I report someone for threatening me with a gun and omit to mention that I threatened to kill them before they did so.

Quote
And yet it would still also be true that he was part of a conspiratorial hoax. So what would the crime be?

The way crimes work, the more elements you add the more charges that can be brought - not less.  Have you ever seen an actual charge?  Prosecutors will charge dozens of crimes, some of which have direct conflicts.  In this case, having actually been beaten doesn't fix the false report.

Let's think of another "example" that will hopefully highlight this.  Let's assume that Jussie gets mugged on the way home, by a guy that is looking to steal his wallet, gets punched in the face and otherwise is left unharmed.

Jussie decides that no crisis should go to waste and makes up a complete story about how the person yelled racist things and was after him because of his status.

The real crime he suffered, doesn't change is false report into a true one.

Quote
I think LR's point was basically that a crime designed in a certain way might have built-in legal deniability.

I take LR's point to be that the prosecutor was correct to dismiss the case because the case was flawed.  It was not flawed in the manner he described.  It may have been flawed in ways we haven't seen.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on April 05, 2019, 09:19:30 PM
Fenring, Jussie runs into his problems when he describes a crime that didn't occur.  Effectively, he described a battery by "strangers" that never happened, failing to report an actual battery by known persons that did happen doesn't change that.  LR was conflating two separate events.

You are incorrect.  You are conflating two separate statutes - false report only applies if the actual crime didn't occur.  Lying about the details is a separate crime (and one it isn't clear Smollett did when talking to police).  From what we know of the statement by Smollett and what the trainer and his brother told the police - everything Smollett said was actually done by them.  According to Abel Osundairo (and Smollett) they attacked him, put the noose around his neck, and poured bleach on him; called him a N***** and a F*****; and that they were wearing black and ski masks; and they shouted MAGA.

Where Abel and Smollett testimony differ is that Abel claims that all of this was directed by Smollet - which, as far as I know - Smollett was never asked in his police interview.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on April 05, 2019, 10:16:14 PM
This would not be properly charged as a battery, and failing to report the conspiracy, fraud and false statements in connection with the event would more than justify it being a false report and a felony case.

You aren't lawfully required to report crimes.  As far as I know there are no fraudulent of false statements made by Smollett.  Everything he testified to appears to be in agreement with the testimony of Abel. A false report can occur due to a material omission - but that occurs when a non-crime is reported as a crime; not when you are accurately reporting the crime that occurred but omitting other crimes that occurred.

Quote
I mean think of the contrary rule you seem to be espousing.  You are essentially saying that to avoid a felony charge of false report all one has to do is make sure your accomplices touch you, cause then its a battery and not false.  If they don't touch you its a felony, if they do, then its not.

According to Abel they did in fact attack him.  It was a true case of battery.  They intended, and did in fact, harm him - which makes it a battery.

Quote
There was no intent to batter Jussie, there was an intent to stage a fake hate crime.  The idea that a couple of light blows without intent to harm that the "victim" paid to have struck changes that is not remotely consistent with how the laws actually work.

They actually beat him according to Abel's statement.  They don't deny doing so, they only allege that it was at his direction.

Quote
Is this some law in Chicago or Illinois?  Never heard of filing formal recusal paperwork with the courts.  Where did you get that?

Yes, I read the process described somewhere about what was required.  Looks like 55 ILCS 5/3-9008(a-15) of the Cook Counties Code - "Appointment of a Special Prosecutor" - "the State's Attorney may file a petition to recuse himself or herself from a cause or proceeding for any other reason he or she deems appropriate and the court shall appoint a special prosecutor as provided in this Section."

See

https://news.wttw.com/sites/default/files/article/file-attachments/McDonald%20Response.pdf

(note that isn't where I originally read of it, but it is a convenience source that covers the gist of things).

Seriati, it seems like you are conflating what you believe Smollett's statement to police with what he actually stated to police, and similarly what his assailants/co-conspirators describe.  From what I can tell - everything Smollett told police is backed up by his assailants/co-conspirators .

Quote
Quote
I think LR's point was basically that a crime designed in a certain way might have built-in legal deniability.

I take LR's point to be that the prosecutor was correct to dismiss the case because the case was flawed.  It was not flawed in the manner he described.  It may have been flawed in ways we haven't seen.

Nope, my point was correctly described by Fenring.  That the exact fact pattern matters in determining what crimes occurred - and that the exact fact pattern in this case precludes the charges brought by the grand jury.

Quote
If you wanted to really get down on it, he could also be charged with aiding and abetting such a battery, and potentially with a number of fraud based claims to the extent he received any financial benefits (which even the increased media attention could qualify as).

I agree that aiding and abetting such a battery would be an appropriate charge if Abel is to believed (and charging him with said battery).  None of the Illinois fraud statutes seem to apply (just read all of (720 ILCS 5/) Criminal Code of 2012.)
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: cherrypoptart on April 06, 2019, 06:02:03 AM
Still doesn't get around the fact that Smollett reported it was two white guys who beat him when he knew very well it was two black guys because he hired them himself. So he still lied to police and hoaxed a hate crime. Now maybe what he should have done is hire two white guys, maybe actual Trump supporters, to beat him. Then he tells the truth about who beat him and maybe even why they beat him, if he talks to them for a while and lets them get to know him and they really do get to hating him. Then his only lies will be by omission, that he paid them and he put them up to it. Maybe he wouldn't even have to pay them. Might be some Trump supporters out there willing to beat him up for free. Or even have the money flow the other way for the privilege. And if there wasn't then there probably are now.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on April 06, 2019, 11:47:07 AM
Still doesn't get around the fact that Smollett reported it was two white guys who beat him when he knew very well it was two black guys because he hired them himself. So he still lied to police and hoaxed a hate crime.

He said two guys dressed in black wearing masks and gloves who used slurs and yelled MAGA.  He said he thought he saw 'pale skin' briefly through the eye-hole of one of the attackers (his lawyer suggests that one of them has done whiteface while playing joker - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYUjRtRoAyA so may have used makeup to disguise their race - seems pretty thin, but not unheard of for instance https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4ospJbyYoU and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B1tSH1oeY0 are two criminals who faked being a different race while committing a crime ), but didn't make a positive statement about the race of the attackers.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on April 06, 2019, 11:51:36 AM
Might be some Trump supporters out there willing to beat him up for free. Or even have the money flow the other way for the privilege. And if there wasn't then there probably are now.

Plenty of Clinton and Obama supporters likely feel the same way.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on April 06, 2019, 01:18:37 PM
LR if it is so obvious, explain two things. Why was he indicted if there was no crime, and why was the disposition of the case handled in such a secretive way.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on April 06, 2019, 02:41:01 PM
LR if it is so obvious, explain two things.

If "what" is so obvious?

Quote
Why was he indicted if there was no crime,

I didn't say there was no crime, I've suggested a number of crimes the he could have been indicted for, such as battery.  The crime he was indicted for though wasn't the crime he likely could have been convicted of.  It is quite common to charge people with crimes that have no chance of prevailing at court in the hopes of convincing the individual to settle.  *censored*ty lawyers will settle, good lawyers will point out why the charges will be thrown out.

I doesn't seem clear at all that the prosecutors had a strong enough case to win 'beyond a reasonable doubt' for even the charges I think could be correctly brought.

Quote
and why was the disposition of the case handled in such a secretive way.

The leaks and the overcharging meant there was a good chance of a successful lawsuit against the city police and the prosecutors for defamation, abuse of process, and malicious prosecution.  If the prosecutor could get anything, such as the forfeiture of his bail bond - that drastically reduced the chances of a successful lawsuit against the city and prosecutors office.  Even dropping the over charges, and refiling accurate charges still risked a defamation lawsuit.  So it was either drop everything and get a negotiated pittance to use as a shield against a lawsuit, or risk an enormous defamation and malicious prosecution suit (we are talking 200+ million dollar suit if he were to prevail).
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: DJQuag on April 07, 2019, 06:43:14 AM
LR, gotta ask.

Are you just having fun with the technicalities, or are you actually invested in defending a guy who, incredibly, both the left and right agree is a complete dick.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on April 07, 2019, 02:47:55 PM
LR, gotta ask.

Are you just having fun with the technicalities, or are you actually invested in defending a guy who, incredibly, both the left and right agree is a complete dick.

I've not defended him at all.  I've suggested there are certain charges he should have been charged with, but wasn't, and was charged with, but shouldn't have been. To me - the technicalities matter. 

I'm kind of hoping he does get nailed with federal charges if he in fact sent the threatening mails to himself (which in my opinion seems likely).

I have somewhat defended both of the prosecutors behavior.  I don't think her initial actions with trying to escalate to the FBI were wrong, immoral, or out of line with typical prosecutor behavior.  I do think she should have fully recused herself to avoid the appearance of impropriety, but don't think the charges being dismissed was conspiratorial - but rather the result of how badly the police screwed things up by doing leaks and the prosecutor then compounded by overcharging.

I certainly don't think the case is the slam dunk that people have suggested since there seem lots of avenues for reasonable doubt.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Seriati on April 08, 2019, 09:56:39 AM
Fenring, Jussie runs into his problems when he describes a crime that didn't occur.  Effectively, he described a battery by "strangers" that never happened, failing to report an actual battery by known persons that did happen doesn't change that.  LR was conflating two separate events.

You are incorrect.

I'm not incorrect.  You can continue to believe so, but I'd suggest, you speak to an actual lawyer if you really need more clarity.  Meanwhile, you're spreading disinformation.

Quote
You are conflating two separate statutes - false report only applies if the actual crime didn't occur.

The underlying crime he reported did not occur.  Ergo no conflation.  Imagine, that he reported they were robbed him.  That didn't occur either, the fact that they confronted him does not make that underlying crime real, and it just a failure to report the accurate details.

In our world "hate crimes" are a real thing.  That's what his report was of, and that's not a crime that occurred.  Claiming he was battered is nonsensical, notwithstanding it could certainly be charged - as well. 

His motive here was pretty clear, unless you are now positing that he didn't know who accosted him and why they did it. 

Quote
Lying about the details is a separate crime (and one it isn't clear Smollett did when talking to police).  From what we know of the statement by Smollett and what the trainer and his brother told the police - everything Smollett said was actually done by them.  According to Abel Osundairo (and Smollett) they attacked him, put the noose around his neck, and poured bleach on him; called him a N***** and a F*****; and that they were wearing black and ski masks; and they shouted MAGA.

Forest meat the trees.  Telling a false narrative by only stating true things and omitting things you know is a false statement.  Engaging in a conspiracy to set the events up is an additional crime. 

I don't know why I'm bothering.  Do you have any competent legal source for what you asserting?  A judge, a lawyer, a text book that analyzes the statutes for you?   Cause you seem to be really doubling down on literalism and completely ignoring intent, notwithstanding its significance under the law.

It's almost like you think our legal system is nothing but technicalities.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: NobleHunter on April 08, 2019, 10:03:31 AM
Aren't technicalities the difference between the law and justice?  ;)

There's a reason lawyers are one of the oldest professionalized careers.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Seriati on April 08, 2019, 10:50:01 AM
No, technicalities are just that.

They have no relevance here, because he's not actually identifying real technicalities, just misinterpreting how the law works.

There could be relevant technicalities involved - which is why I said there could be more details here than what we know.  But there's no truth to the idea that if they touched him it's a "real crime" and if they didn't it's not, and therefore whether he filed a false report is contingent on this "technicality."  In either event he filed a report for a crime that didn't occur.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on April 08, 2019, 12:59:30 PM
I'm not incorrect.  You can continue to believe so, but I'd suggest, you speak to an actual lawyer if you really need more clarity.  Meanwhile, you're spreading disinformation.

You are incorrect.  Smollet described a battery, his attackers agreed that they perpetrated said battery.  No matter what else happened - there absolutely was a battery.  So said crime DID occur. 

Quote
The underlying crime he reported did not occur.

It absolutely did.  I can't figure out how you are completely ignoring the evidence.

Quote
Ergo no conflation.  Imagine, that he reported they were robbed him.  That didn't occur either, the fact that they confronted him does not make that underlying crime real, and it just a failure to report the accurate details.

He never reported elements of a crime that didn't occur.  He accurately described what happened and that description is consistent with the statement of his attacker.  So it did occur.  If he had reported that they robbed him, then that would indeed be a false statement.

Quote
In our world "hate crimes" are a real thing.  That's what his report was of, and that's not a crime that occurred.  Claiming he was battered is nonsensical, notwithstanding it could certainly be charged - as well.

You agree it could be charged, but that his claiming it was nonsensical  - seriously????  If it didn't occur it couldn't be charged.  It can only be charged because it did in fact occur.  Ergo, not a false report.  Note that the police filed his statement as a battery as well.

Quote
His motive here was pretty clear, unless you are now positing that he didn't know who accosted him and why they did it.

Actually the evidence is that he didn't intend to file a report (he got pressured into it).

Quote
Forest meat the trees.  Telling a false narrative by only stating true things and omitting things you know is a false statement.  Engaging in a conspiracy to set the events up is an additional crime.

It is only a false statment to omit details if it makes a non-crime appear to be a crime.  Omitting details of surrounding crimes to report a subset of crimes is not a crime.

For instance if a burglar breaks in, rapes a woman, and steals her stuff.  If she just reports the rape, or she just reports the burglary - she hasn't committed a crime.  Or if a woman is raped at gun point - but she only reports the rape - a failure to report that the perpetrator used a gun is not a crime - even though it reduces the significance of the crime.

Quote
I don't know why I'm bothering.  Do you have any competent legal source for what you asserting?  A judge, a lawyer, a text book that analyzes the statutes for you?   Cause you seem to be really doubling down on literalism and completely ignoring intent, notwithstanding its significance under the law.

I'm not ignoring intent - there was clear intent to batter as testified to by the assailants.

Quote
It's almost like you think our legal system is nothing but technicalities.

The legal system is constrained by technicalities - a false report is only a false report if it was was a false claim of a crime occurring that didn't in fact occur, or if omitting details mislead investigators to think a non-crime was a crime.  There isn't a special exception of "well we really want to nail this guy".
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Seriati on April 08, 2019, 01:57:31 PM
LR, can you provide the source for your "legal" analysis.  It's completely not correct, and I don't see a good reason to go back and forth on a debate where you seem to be asserting claims about how the law work, rather than your opinions on how it should work.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on April 11, 2019, 10:49:44 PM
And now we have the city suing Smollet. I think we can dispense with the idea that the city was afraid of Smollet suing them.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on April 12, 2019, 02:07:20 PM
And now we have the city suing Smollet. I think we can dispense with the idea that the city was afraid of Smollet suing them.

It is a civil suit, so the burden of proof is less.  We shall see if Smollet counter sues (I think it likely a bluff but who knows), or settles, or goes to court.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on May 23, 2019, 05:34:07 PM
Quote
CHICAGO (WLS) -- A judge ruled Thursday to unseal documents in the case of "Empire" actor Jussie Smollett.

The records were sealed in March shortly after charges against Smollett were abruptly dropped by prosecutors. Attorneys representing the media, including ABC7, challenged the sealing of the records.

The Cook County State's Attorney said it is currently reviewing the documents and will release them by June 3.

The judge ruled that based on all the media interviews Smollett and his lawyers did after the charges were dropped that Smollett essentially had no interest in maintaining his privacy in this.

The guy should have taken his win and shut up.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: rightleft22 on May 23, 2019, 05:38:51 PM
I wouldn't be surprised when its revealed that Smollett has a mental health issue
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: ScottF on May 23, 2019, 06:58:23 PM
Ya think?
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on May 23, 2019, 07:10:35 PM
He’s perfectly sane. Hoax hate crimes very often work, especially if Trump can be blamed.  Smollet was correct to believe he could have used this to vault himself into Blasey-Ford levels of fame. But, like his post dismissal actions demonstrate, he’s just not smart enough to execute properly  on it. He was close though.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: D.W. on May 28, 2019, 10:23:51 AM
While it seems plausible for him to believe he'd get away with it, I think saying "very often works" may tip into Fake News territory Crunch.  :P
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: rightleft22 on May 28, 2019, 12:34:50 PM
Quote
He’s perfectly sane. Hoax hate crimes very often work, especially if Trump can be blamed.  Smollet was correct to believe he could have used this to vault himself into Blasey-Ford levels of fame. But, like his post dismissal actions demonstrate, he’s just not smart enough to execute properly  on it. He was close though.

I have a difficult time imagining how he got around to convincing himself this was a good idea.  I can't relate at all... the best I could come up with was stupid with a side of mental issue
A while back someone sent me a article about a guy who held the world record for lifting a brick that was tied to his ball sack. People do stupid things. I wonder about that moment when he woke up and thought to himself...  I think I'll dangle something heavy from my ball sack, what could go wrong...
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: NobleHunter on May 28, 2019, 12:56:37 PM
A while back someone sent me a article about a guy who held the world record for lifting a brick that was tied to his ball sack. People do stupid things. I wonder about that moment when he woke up and thought to himself...  I think I'll dangle something heavy from my ball sack, what could go wrong...

I'm not sure I want to hope that the guy was into that sort of thing or not. It's easier to understand if he gets off on dangling things from his scrotum but on the other hand there's an exhibitionist element. Maybe it'd be better if he's just proving how tough he is.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: rightleft22 on May 28, 2019, 01:24:03 PM
Quote
I'm not sure I want to hope that the guy was into that sort of thing or not. It's easier to understand if he gets off on dangling things from his scrotum but on the other hand there's an exhibitionist element. Maybe it'd be better if he's just proving how tough he is.

I'm ok with not knowing why :)

I often think back at some of the stupid things I've done. There was always that moment, maybe not fully conscious, where I thought the stupid was a good idea. In hindsight its always a odd moment.

From what I hear about Smollet, he still thinks his stupid was a good idea, even doubling down... if true I wonder at the mental gymnastics he's had to do to 'stay true' to that.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on May 28, 2019, 02:52:25 PM
Quote
He’s perfectly sane. Hoax hate crimes very often work, especially if Trump can be blamed.  Smollet was correct to believe he could have used this to vault himself into Blasey-Ford levels of fame. But, like his post dismissal actions demonstrate, he’s just not smart enough to execute properly  on it. He was close though.

I have a difficult time imagining how he got around to convincing himself this was a good idea.  I can't relate at all... the best I could come up with was stupid with a side of mental issue


He was cooking this scheme up about the time Blasey-Ford was becoming a star for lying about Kavanaugh. In that environment, there's also a ton of people that have perpetrated fake hate crimes and also become quasi-famous. From the mattress girl to the transgender that burned her own home down killing her pets, they "stars" on the left.

Look at the support Smollet initially got. He was well on the way to becoming a left-wing icon, the face of hate crime victims. He could have turned this into rock star status for his music or more/better acting gigs. You know this, come on.

His idea was sound, his execution was hilarious. Now, let's all be real, if the Coen brother did a mini-series on this, you'd watch it. We would all binge the hell out it. Those Nigerian brothers are comedy gold just waiting to be mined. Smollet could still make out here.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: rightleft22 on May 28, 2019, 03:03:49 PM
we might have different tastes in entertainment :)

With regards to Blasey-Ford I never go the feeling she came forward to become famous.

I don't know Crunch... your world view seems dark to me, everyone out to screw everyone else.  Maybe I have my head in the sand.

Sometimes people do stupid, sometimes theirs a conspiracy to do stupid, but mostly I think opeople are just trying to get by and do the right things as they see them.
Smollet was stupid to try to pull off what he did. The people who jumped on without knowing the whole story were stupid - everyone wanting to prove how right they were about the other side.
And it Stupid to allow a fake event as a excuse to look away from the real ones.. Maybe were all just stupid.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on May 28, 2019, 03:17:41 PM
With regard to jumping on - if a friend or family member came to you and told you a story like that would you wait to get all the facts before giving them support? I don't think there was any reason for the producers of his show to doubt his story, and it would have been awkward at best if they waited to get all the facts. Same for his fans, people who have been victims , and such.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: D.W. on May 28, 2019, 04:09:33 PM
I was living in a cave and first I heard of it was Crunch's post here.  :P  So I was skeptical out the gate.  But I don't know the guy... or employ him.  So guess yer right.   
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on May 28, 2019, 06:41:45 PM
we might have different tastes in entertainment :)

With regards to Blasey-Ford I never go the feeling she came forward to become famous.

I don't know Crunch... your world view seems dark to me, everyone out to screw everyone else.  Maybe I have my head in the sand.

Sometimes people do stupid, sometimes theirs a conspiracy to do stupid, but mostly I think opeople are just trying to get by and do the right things as they see them.
Smollet was stupid to try to pull off what he did. The people who jumped on without knowing the whole story were stupid - everyone wanting to prove how right they were about the other side.
And it Stupid to allow a fake event as a excuse to look away from the real ones.. Maybe were all just stupid.

Ford may not have come forward to be famous but that was the end result. Magazine covers, a darling of the left, hailed as a hero. She got that, why wouldn’t others look for the same?

Perhaps my world view seems dark in this narrow slice of life you see here. I actually spend most of my time laughing and having fun with friends and family. Probably, hopefully, not so different from you.

Smollet is but one of many. Hoax hate crimes are very far from unusual. Does it make him stupid to see the success others can have with these hoaxes and want that for himself? A little. It’s the execution that puts him in the hall of fame. Of course, he got away with it too. So he’s got that going for him.

It’s nit an excuse to look away from real hate crimes. It is, however, yet another reason to practice a reasonable level of skepticism.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on May 28, 2019, 06:48:03 PM
With regard to jumping on - if a friend or family member came to you and told you a story like that would you wait to get all the facts before giving them support? I don't think there was any reason for the producers of his show to doubt his story, and it would have been awkward at best if they waited to get all the facts. Same for his fans, people who have been victims , and such.

There was every reason to doubt this story. You think I called it early? Hardly, I held offand for several days gave the benefit of the doubt. But it was so ludicrous that many people I know called it a hoax the very second they heard it. Chicago, MAGA country, 2 am in the worst winter storm of the season, that alone was suspicious and it went downhill quickly from there.

If a family member came to me with such obvious bull*censored*, I’d first confirm that they were actually seriously trying to float this story. My support would be to lead them into being honest and making sure they understood that total forgiveness was already given. I wouldn’t just feed into this stupidity no matter what. Supporting people is not giving them a free pass on all their bull*censored*.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: rightleft22 on May 29, 2019, 10:38:27 AM
Quote
Ford may not have come forward to be famous but that was the end result.

I guess the question then is do we blame Ford for her intention or the result which was manipulated buy others who I suspect nearer really saw Ford as a person. We live in a odd world

Glad to hear you spend most of your time laughing and happy with your friends. As you said this narrow slice of life we see one these boards or other forms of social media can be very misleading.

I've been reading a number of books about people traveling around the world and they all say the same thing that the majority of people they meet are kind, helpful and open.
Watching the news and dialog on social media sometimes I forget.  I was watching a youtube video of itchyboots - a woman traveling around the world who was in Iran. My thoughts on Iran is distrust, a people that want to do the west harm and yet everyone she met was kind and helpful, non political, just doing the best they could with what they have. Exactly as I try to do. One small slice of life verses another small slice of life. I wonder why I allowed the negative slice to influence me so much more.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Fenring on May 29, 2019, 10:50:36 AM
My thoughts on Iran is distrust, a people that want to do the west harm and yet everyone she met was kind and helpful, non political, just doing the best they could with what they have. Exactly as I try to do. One small slice of life verses another small slice of life. I wonder why I allowed the negative slice to influence me so much more.

Careful here. There's a big difference between a narrow set of someone's real behavior, which social media can bring out, versus a completely made-up political propaganda effort designed to besmirch a people that are being targeted for invasion. What you get from people online is their real behavior, albeit modified greatly to probably exclude most empathy and also to remove filters, allowing them to say things they'd not allow themselves to say in person. This is a real part of themselves, but not the 'same whole self' you'd meet in life. One aspect missing especially is fear; the fear of getting a social interaction wrong and suffering some consequence. As there seems to be little or no 'failure scenario' for someone commenting online this fear is largely gone and along with it most inhibition other than pure intellectual calculation. This is IMO an important part of the study of human nature, i.e. which controls affect which parts of our behavior, and which, when removed, allow for what. But believing lies about another country is a study only of the motives of those putting out the lies.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on May 29, 2019, 03:57:32 PM
Quote
Ford may not have come forward to be famous but that was the end result.

I guess the question then is do we blame Ford for her intention or the result which was manipulated buy others who I suspect nearer really saw Ford as a person. We live in a odd world
Since Ford was lying, she gets a pretty hefty share of the blame. Of course, Feinstein outing her like that was pretty *censored*ty.
Glad to hear you spend most of your time laughing and happy with your friends. As you said this narrow slice of life we see one these boards or other forms of social media can be very misleading.

I've been reading a number of books about people traveling around the world and they all say the same thing that the majority of people they meet are kind, helpful and open.
Watching the news and dialog on social media sometimes I forget.  I was watching a youtube video of itchyboots - a woman traveling around the world who was in Iran. My thoughts on Iran is distrust, a people that want to do the west harm and yet everyone she met was kind and helpful, non political, just doing the best they could with what they have. Exactly as I try to do. One small slice of life verses another small slice of life. I wonder why I allowed the negative slice to influence me so much more.

I travel extensively, 5 countries in the last 6 months and will hit 2 more in June. The majority of people truly are kind and open wherever I go and a lot depends on your own attitude in that (Americans have a lot to learn about being a tourist IMHO). You know where you have a problem? Government agents (police, military, bureaucrats). They have a mandate to enforce the will of the state and can be pretty power trippy or at least willing to be 'letter of the law' types in the extreme. As an American, I wouldn't go to Iran or Noth Korea right now (if ever). The people would probably be cool but getting caught up with the state would be a real killer - as Otto Warmbier would tell you if he were alive today.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: rightleft22 on May 29, 2019, 04:11:10 PM
Quote
Since Ford was lying, she gets a pretty hefty share of the blame

You can't prove she was lying, just as you can't Prove Kavanaugh was telling the truth.
In this case People chose their slice based on what they wanted to be true

Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: D.W. on May 29, 2019, 04:13:17 PM
Dude got appointed.  As far as Crunch is concerned that's as good as Jesus Christ showing up and calling her a liar on live TV.  It's a fact now.   ::)
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on May 29, 2019, 06:51:44 PM
Quote
Since Ford was lying, she gets a pretty hefty share of the blame

You can't prove she was lying, just as you can't Prove Kavanaugh was telling the truth.
In this case People chose their slice based on what they wanted to be true

The standard is that she must prove her accusations. That’s the way our system works. We can’t have a system where “you can’t prove it’s a lie” means you’re guilty, especially for 40 year old accusations.

Ford was ridiculously far from proving single thing about her story. I don’t recall a single detail that was supported by evidence.

I think your push for guilty until proven innocent is a pretty bad idea.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on May 29, 2019, 06:52:26 PM
Dude got appointed.  As far as Crunch is concerned that's as good as Jesus Christ showing up and calling her a liar on live TV.  It's a fact now.   ::)

It sounds like you just hit Stage II TDS.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: D.W. on May 29, 2019, 11:22:41 PM
Not yet.  Fortunately my condition will only advance upon further SC nominations or re-election.  Otherwise it's more an OMB hobby.  ;)
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: cherrypoptart on June 03, 2019, 03:53:14 AM
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/jussie-smollett-bought-drugs-brothers-134357168.html

Jussie Smollett bought drugs from the brothers who staged alleged attack, documents show
Maeve McDermott - Maeve McDermott

"New documents released by Chicago police Thursday show Jussie Smollett discussing drugs with the two brothers who accused the "Empire" actor of paying them to stage an attack on him.

The texts were among the 460 pages released by the Cook County State's Attorney's Office and Chicago Police Department Thursday after a judge ordered Smollett's case file unsealed last week.

The documents show that Smollett initially communicated with Abimbola 'Abel' and Olabinjo “Ola Osundairo about buying marijuana, cocaine and ecstasy before enlisting them to stage his alleged attack on Jan. 29. The brothers later told Chicago police that Smollett paid them to stage the attack on him.

"It was found during the review of these text records that on various occasions Smollett would request that (redacted) procure items for Smollett which Smollett described as weed, molly, or Whitney, which the (case report) was familiar with being slang for cannabis and controlled substances," the documents read. "In particular, weed is slang for cannabis, molly is slang for ecstasy and whitney is slang for cocaine."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seems like some serious obstruction of justice going on here.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Pete at Home on June 04, 2019, 06:34:40 PM
Next time some leftwit starts spinning that propaganda about "white males and anti government protesters" posing the greatest terrorist threat, gonna ask if that includes Jussie Smollett'$ light white Nigerians
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on November 20, 2019, 11:38:07 AM
Quote
Jussie Smollett is fighting back after months of silence, suing the City of Chicago, the brothers he is accused of paying to attack him and Chicago Police Department Chief for malicious prosecution. 


OMFG. Hahahahahahahahah ..... wheeze .....  hhahahhahaha.

I can’t wait for discovery.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on November 20, 2019, 11:58:45 AM
I don't see such a case being successful.

Quote
A successful malicious prosecution claims requires that:

    the defendant begin or continue a criminal or civil legal proceeding
    without reasonable grounds to believe the allegations of the proceeding
    and with a purpose other than simply getting a judgment in the proceeding (called “malice” in legal terms)
    the defendant has lost the original “false” case he or she brought against the plaintiff, and
    the plaintiff was damaged by the defendant’s “false” case.

https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/what-malicious-prosecution-claim.html
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on February 11, 2020, 05:35:20 PM
The wheels of justice grind slowly:

Quote
Former "Empire" actor Jussie Smollett was indicted Tuesday by a special prosecutor in Chicago investigating allegations he bogusly reported being the victim of a January 2019 hate-crime attack, officials said.

Smollett, 37, was indicted by special prosecutor Dan Webb, who was appointed by a Cook County judge to continue looking into his false allegations after the Cook County State’s Attorney Office dropped all charges against the actor, a source close to Smollett told ABC news.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: wmLambert on February 11, 2020, 07:40:30 PM
I wonder who will get the most attention: Smollett or the Cook County State’s Attorney Office that made the police so angry by cutting him loose?
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on December 03, 2021, 11:42:11 AM
Smollett is currently standing trial,

https://www.vice.com/en/article/dypp9x/jussie-smollett-trial-what-happened-so-far
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: cherrypoptart on December 03, 2021, 02:32:43 PM
“What happened today to @JussieSmollett must never be tolerated in this country. We must stand up and demand that we no longer give this hate safe harbor; that homophobia and racism have no place on our streets or in our hearts. We are with you, Jussie.” — Joe Biden

“@JussieSmollett is one of the kindest, most gentle human beings I know … This was an attempted modern-day lynching. No one should have to fear for their life because of their sexuality or color of their skin. We must confront this hate.” — then-Sen. Kamala Harris

“The racist, homophobic attack … is an affront to our humanity. No one should be attacked for who they are or whom they love. I pray that Jussie has a speedy recovery & that justice is served. May we all commit to ending this hate once & for all.” — Rep. Nancy Pelosi

“This is a sickening and outrageous attack, and horribly, it’s the latest of too many hate crimes against LGBTQ people and people of color. We are all responsible for condemning this behavior and every person who enables or normalizes it. Praying for Jussie and his family.” — Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand

“There is no such thing as ‘racially charged.’ This attack was not ‘possibly’ homophobic. It was a racist and homophobic attack. If you don’t like what is happening to our country, then work to change it. It is no one’s job to water down or sugar-coat the rise of hate crimes.” — Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

“Regarding the heinous attack on @JussieSmollett, yet another reminder that Trump’s ascendance and the resulting climate of hate has meant that lives have been increasingly at stake since 2015. Smollett could have been killed by those thugs screaming MAGA. Let that sink in.” — Karen Attiah, Washington Post editor

“The horrific attack on Jussie Smollett has no place in a decent human loving society. Homophobia existed before Trump, but there is no question that since he has injected his hatred into the American bloodstream, we are less decent, less human, & less loving. No intolerance! No DT!” — Director Rob Reiner

“Jussie Smollett was violently attacked by two white men who poured bleach on him and put a noose around his neck. He was targeted for being black and for being gay. THIS is why we have to have zero tolerance against homophobia and racism. Jussie’s life matters.” — Actress Olivia Munn

“Heartbroken and furious reading about the attack on @JussieSmollett. I want Trump and all MAGA lunatics to burn in Hell.” — Actor Billy Eichner

---------------------------------------------

Some quotes from our people courtesy of Ann Coulter, some of whom we are expecting to lead us against the wily Russians who are famous for using maskirovka as a common tactic, both military and political, as well as the Chinese whose Sun Tsu in The Art of War told us outright that "All warfare is based on deception."

And there we have our top two peeps Biden and Harris falling for such an obvious fraud from a third rate huckster, getting out in front of it and boldly proclaiming their gullibility for the entire world to see. That doesn't bode well for Ukraine and Taiwan.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on December 03, 2021, 02:34:04 PM
And there we have our top two peeps Biden and Harris falling for such an obvious fraud, getting out in front of it and boldly proclaiming their gullibility for the entire world to see. That doesn't bode well for Ukraine and Taiwan.

There was zero reason to believe it was a fake attack at the time those tweets were made, so it is absurd to condemn them for responding the way they did and there is zero reason to claim they were 'gullible'.  Gullible is believing something absurb, not taking ssomething at face value that is highly plausible based on the evidence at that time.

Racists and homophobes have often attacks on black individuals and on homosexual individuals.

For instance here is a recent sentencing for a racist with a knife who attacked a black man.

Quote
Hougen confronted a 29-year-old Black man in Santa Cruz and shouted racial slurs at him, according to evidence at the trial. Hougen also slashed at the man’s head, chest and stomach with a nine-inch knife while screaming slurs, officials said. A witness said that Hougen stabbed and slashed at the man’s chest and head 10 to 20 times, according to the news release.

Santa Cruz police said that the attack occurred on July 5, 2020 on San Lorenzo Boulevard and Broadway Street, according to a Facebook post. The victim “was able to fend off the attacker” until police arrived, they said.

Hougen was on probation after pleading no contest to charges that he “committed a racially motivated assault on a different Black man in 2018,” according to federal officials.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/12/03/santa-cruz-man-sentenced-to-more-than-6-years-in-prison-in-hate-crime-knife-attack/
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: cherrypoptart on December 03, 2021, 02:47:28 PM
Zero reason to believe it was a hoax?

A couple of racist homophobic white guys in a pickup driving around Chicago at 2 in the morning during a polar vortex carrying a noose and bleach yelling this is MAGA country, okay so far I guess that's plausible, but then they actually watch the show Empire and recognize Smollett from it? Come on now.

Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Wayward Son on December 03, 2021, 04:28:20 PM
Not everyone is as discerning as you are, cherry. ;)

I know you have never made a mistake in believing the initial reports of a situation, but not all of us are that smart.  Sometimes we believe what we'd like to believe before all the evidence is in, especially if the reports seem plausible.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on December 03, 2021, 08:53:27 PM
Zero reason to believe it was a hoax?

Yes, at the level of knowledge that the typical person had of the event at the time - 'racists attack black gay man'.  The details of when, weather, etc. were probably not something that people were aware of.  Also Empire is on Fox, so presumably they run ads for it frequently, so it wouldn't be surprising for racists to have seen ads and thus be able to recognize Smollett without watching Empire. I've never watched any show or interview, etc. involving a Kardashian, but I could possibly recognize Kim.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Fenring on December 03, 2021, 09:09:27 PM
Here's a timeline of the events, for anyone interested:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/timeline-alleged-jussie-smollett-attack/story?id=61124090

The original incident was reported by Smollett on Jan 29, 2019, and that's the same day that Biden, for example, made his Tweet. Trump himself appears to have Tweeted something in Smollett's defense two days later. According to this timeline, it took mainstream attention until the 1st or 2nd week of Feb 2019 to begin to smell a rat, so this thread's initial suspicion was indeed quite early in the game in contrast to when the alleged assault actually happened. Whether there was "zero" reason to believe it was a hoax I have no idea. I actually learned of the event from this thread.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on December 03, 2021, 10:39:41 PM
Just to be clear - I mean 'zero reason' for a person of the typical information level, I agree that the full details certainly might make a reasonable person suspicious and I'm glad the police followed through and am disgusted with the initial solicitous treatment he received by the prosecution once the police investigated.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on December 03, 2021, 11:55:22 PM
One must think about the message it sends when there isn't an expression of immediate support. It's generally a safe bet that in the vast majority of accusations, something really did happen.

To take a wait and see approach on the off chance that it might be a false accusation, is to cast suspicion on any accuser and discourage reporting of such incidents. As well as indicating that we care more about the potential for scripted attacks than we do about the number of attacks that are happening to people every day

What is the downside of providing support for a victim and for all the victims like the one reporting, in this case Smollett. That there is a vanishing chance that you might have to withdraw that support isn't a reason to not give it.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Fenring on December 04, 2021, 01:05:37 AM
One must think about the message it sends when there isn't an expression of immediate support. It's generally a safe bet that in the vast majority of accusations, something really did happen.

I don't exactly disagree, although on the other hand, why does the President need to weigh in on what I might call domestic crimes, even highly publicized ones? Did Clinton make some kind of public statement in support or condemnation of O.J. Simpson? And why should he have?

Quote
To take a wait and see approach on the off chance that it might be a false accusation, is to cast suspicion on any accuser and discourage reporting of such incidents.

Is it? It sounds like you're saying that the only purpose to reporting such incidents is to receive social media support, as if the public media response is the main intention in filing a crime report. In this case, ironically, it was, but generally the purpose would be to see justice done in the courts, wouldn't you say?

Quote
What is the downside of providing support for a victim and for all the victims like the one reporting, in this case Smollett. That there is a vanishing chance that you might have to withdraw that support isn't a reason to not give it.

It doesn't seem like cherry's point is precisely that these people should be condemned because they happened to be wrong, but rather that they fell for exactly what the ruse was meant to produce: support from famous people in order to draw attention to a cause. So from that standpoint cherry is literally correct, they did exactly what Smollett wanted them to, and for the reason he predicted they would: because people want to jump on public bandwagons on certain select causes. And that desire to be seen as supporting those causes is the weakness that was exploited here; Smollett knew that much. To me it's not so much a question of whether there happened to be enough evidence that it was a hoax, and more that this very public virtue signalling causes these dogpiles for or against to happen. I don't know whether Biden should have known better than to believe Smollett, but I do think it would have been more decent to refrain from trying to cash in on it with a Tweet. I think more or less the same about these shows of public support as I do about the Twitter mobs trying to destroy people for having the wrong opinion. In both cases social media proves to be a strong avenue for narcissism.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: cherrypoptart on December 04, 2021, 03:01:54 PM
There is all of that too, but I'm also thinking big picture, geopolitically. Looking that gullible can cost countries like it did Afghanistan. I think it's clear they actually are that gullible, Biden and Harris, but even if they aren't the perception that they are is a weakness that our adversaries will seek to exploit. It's one weakness on top of another, not being willing to make sacrifices to defend freedom as Biden demonstrated in Afghanistan which is emboldening Russia against Ukraine and China against Taiwan along with the weakness of being easily duped. There's the old saw about how the Russians are playing chess and the Chinese are playing Go and usually we'd hear how our leaders are playing checkers but that's actually overstating their gamesmanship level because they are really just playing Tic-tac-toe. And worse yet, where they should be at least able to draw, instead they are losing.

The other side has Alai and Han Tzu and Vlad but instead of Ender or Bean, Graff or Rackham, we get The Woke Army.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on December 04, 2021, 03:15:08 PM
There is all of that too, but I'm also thinking big picture, geopolitically. Looking that gullible can cost countries like it did Afghanistan.

They in no way 'looked gullible'.  That is something purely in your imagination.  While you can question whether they should comment on domestic issues, that is seperate from the reasonableness of their comments based on what they could have reasonably been expected to know at the time.

Trump also expressed a similar comment at a later date, so he is either 'more gullible' or by any measure they are 'less gullible'.  I don't think any of them can be perceived as being 'gullible' though based on that particular issue.

Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: cherrypoptart on December 04, 2021, 04:09:23 PM
You just look at the first comments on this thread and it's pretty obvious there were red flags everywhere that this was a hoax and anyone with even the weakest critical eye could see it. Not one part of it made any sense at all.

Biden got taken in by this hoax just like he got sandbagged by the Taliban. Not a big deal with the hoax hate crime but losing a country was. Biden has a history of being wrong about things, both big and small and this was just another example in a long progression that continues to this day.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDeamon on December 04, 2021, 04:20:57 PM
Going back and re-reading the thread is interesting, but we also didn't start the discussion here until a few days later, after the additional information started coming to light.

I was inclined to believe the accusation when the report was first made, although, as mentioned in the first page of this topic, I was mindful of the false-flags that had been happening for the past few years so there was some room for doubt.

But the more details that came to light, the more incredulous an objective person had to becomes about it.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: cherrypoptart on December 06, 2021, 05:47:10 PM
https://news.yahoo.com/jussie-smollett-said-witness-stand-200111258.html

If I'm understanding this correctly, Smollett is standing by his story that two racist redneck Trump supporters in a pickup truck recognized him from his show on a dark and snowy night, called him out personally while also mentioning their support for Trump while beating him up, putting a noose around his neck which he kept on for over an hour, and dousing him with bleach.

The Nigerian brothers, in both senses of the word, actually had nothing to do with the attack, never touched Smollett except romantically for one of them at a bathhouse, and are making up this story about a hate crime hoax conspiracy because Smollett refused to pay them a million dollars to not make up the story they are making up.

You can't make this stuff up. Oh wait...
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on December 06, 2021, 08:39:16 PM
https://news.yahoo.com/jussie-smollett-said-witness-stand-200111258.html

If I'm understanding this correctly, Smollett is standing by his story that two racist redneck Trump supporters in a pickup truck recognized him from his show on a dark and snowy night, called him out personally while also mentioning their support for Trump while beating him up, putting a noose around his neck which he kept on for over an hour, and dousing him with bleach.

Hmm the link didn't work. I think you are misunderstanding?

I think he is claiming that they attacked him because one of them was a jilted lover and were pretending to be MAGA supporters so he wouldn't suspect them.

Quote
and are making up this story about a hate crime hoax conspiracy because Smollett refused to pay them a million dollars to not make up the story they are making up.

I think the defenses claim is that once they learned that the police were investigating and thought that Jussie had masterminded the attack, this created an opportunity for them to extort him by threatening to lie on the stand unless he paid them a million dollars.

Note I'm not saying it is a very plausible theory, but it might be enough for 'reasonable doubt' in the mind of some jury members.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: cherrypoptart on December 06, 2021, 10:51:39 PM
So his claim is that these are the guys who attacked him but even though he admits to being the lover of one of them he couldn't recognize them at all? I'd like to hear on the stand their best imitation of the redneck Trump supporting accents that Smollett suggests they must have been using to help conceal their identities. This wasn't actually a fake hate crime though. It was a real hate crime perpetrated against Trump, his supporters, and white people in general.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on December 08, 2021, 10:20:03 AM
So his claim is that these are the guys who attacked him but even though he admits to being the lover of one of them he couldn't recognize them at all? I'd like to hear on the stand their best imitation of the redneck Trump supporting accents that Smollett suggests they must have been using to help conceal their identities. This wasn't actually a fake hate crime though. It was a real hate crime perpetrated against Trump, his supporters, and white people in general.

I don't think you understand what hate crime is, or what a protected group is. Being disparaged because of the politicians and politics you choose to support us not even close to either of those things.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Fenring on December 08, 2021, 10:43:25 AM
I don't think you understand what hate crime is, or what a protected group is. Being disparaged because of the politicians and politics you choose to support us not even close to either of those things.

I just have to suspect that cherry may not be using the term "hate crime" in the legal sense of protected groups. He seems to mean "crime that is based in hate", which is ironically inapplicable according to the legal standard if you're in a majority group...at least in America. I imagine in Israel an attack on someone for being Jewish would be considered a hate crime (if they even have such a term?).
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on December 08, 2021, 10:55:05 AM
Oh, I wasn't trying to lawyer him, although one does invite that using the word "crime". But members of a majority group whining about being hated is simply laughable - even if it is racial which MAGA isn't - or so they keep telling us. Do MAGA people not do the same thing with "Demonrats" or "Commies" or "Socialists" or planned parenthood or BLM or immigrants or sesame street ..... well the list of groups they hate is nearly infinite.

To be more concerned about the tiny percentage of false reports than the vast numbers of real incidents shows a really warped set of priorities.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Fenring on December 08, 2021, 11:06:35 AM
To be fair, and not particularly in cherry's defense, I don't think numerical majority necessarily should be the end-all of whether a hate-based action is "laughable". It is not at all uncommon in history for a small minority to have vastly more power in a situation than the majority do. So even if you're going based on a punching up/punching down metric (which obviously right-wing people aren't anyhow) one might well be punching up when going after the minority if they have the power. That is, in fact, exactly what happened in Quebec, Canada in the early-mid 1900's, when the French majority were under the thumb of the English minority (at least, that is the claim). in other words, before dismissing someone's concern about hate, just citing numerical majority is not only a short circuit type of logic, but is inapplicable even within the context of the intersectionalist theory without doing a much more serious analysis of the various lines of power in play.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on December 08, 2021, 01:43:36 PM
Come back and talk to me about hate crimes against majorities when heterosexuals have to worry about being beaten up for their preference, when white people get dragged behind pickup trucks for the amusement of black people, when white people get denied access to businesses or residences in a way that damages their ability to succeed in life. If you're a man, and you can't join up to a Curves gym, you are not facing unjust oppression. It just simply isn't equivalent because of the impact.

I'm sure we might be able to drum up specific examples of some of these, but it simply isn't anything the average white heterosexual male has to be concerned about. You don't walk to your car wondering if you're going to get attacked, or walk to subway for a sandwich wondering if you're going to make it without being harassed in some way.

Frankly, the White House should be posting a tweet every single day about racially motivated crimes and not have to be compelled because of someone's celebrity or news attention.

It is also a fallacy that we don't prosecute hate crimes committed against majority group members.

Victims broken down by FBI, 2019 (https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2019/topic-pages/victims)

15.7% victims of anti-white bias
9% victims of anti-Christian bias, plus 1% anti-mormon (depending on how you choose to classify)
1.3% anti-heterosexual
18 of 81 gender bias crimes were anti-male

Percentages are based on subcategory, not total.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Fenring on December 08, 2021, 02:02:50 PM
Come back and talk to me about hate crimes against majorities when heterosexuals have to worry about being beaten up for their preference, when white people get dragged behind pickup trucks for the amusement of black people, when white people get denied access to businesses or residences in a way that damages their ability to succeed in life.

A lot of people are really obsessed with the black/white binary. There are lots of colors in the rainbow, and lots of kinds of discrimination; and more broadly, lots of types of power structures that advantage some people while disadvantaging others. I know you're only talking about literal crimes in this context, but if you want to talk about minority/majority in a meaningful way then you have to talk about who has power and who doesn't. And white, MAGA-hat wearing people absolutely are the 'minority' (in the sense of being castigated and powerless) in certain milieus. I wouldn't like the chances of such a person being hired in silicon valley, or Hollywood at this point, just to give two examples. In those milieus, the right-winger of a certain bent must almost hide their predilections in order to be accepted. I've heard anecdotal stories in a similar vain in the university system, where some right-wing people I know (Trump haters, as it happens) have to all but hide the fact that they're Republicans in their work life in order to avoid sending the 'wrong' message to the administrators there. So the issue is always more complex than just saying the white majority obviously has nothing to worry about. If you have to keep your identity secret to avoid trouble then yes, there is something to worry about, whether it's about being trans or whether it's about being a Trump supporter.

Quote
It is also a fallacy that we don't prosecute hate crimes committed against majority group members.

Hey, you were the one who told cherry he must not know what a protected group is when he said hate crimes were conducted "against Trump, his supporters, and white people in general."
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on December 08, 2021, 02:40:49 PM
So his claim is that these are the guys who attacked him but even though he admits to being the lover of one of them he couldn't recognize them at all? I'd like to hear on the stand their best imitation of the redneck Trump supporting accents that Smollett suggests they must have been using to help conceal their identities.

There were two short phrases it is trivially easy to have ones voice unrecognizable for such a brief amount of talking or yelling. He never claimed an accent or anything else.  He claims they were dressed in all black with masks pulled over their head and face.  His second police report says he assumed they might be white based on the words.  He also told police that the eye holes appeared to be pale skin.

There wasn't anything in any of the police reports or after interview summaries that stated he said his attackers were white.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on December 08, 2021, 03:02:05 PM
White people is a protected group. Being a member of a political party is not. Yes, if you wear a MAGA hat to an interview with me, you're probably going to have an uphill battle because it demonstrates poor judgement, but not necessarily more so than if you wore a Bernie button. If you ask for time off to attend a Unite the Right rally, I will become biased against you to some extent because of company inclusivity values. If you march around the company hallways talking about how women are less suited to be programmers, I'm going to ask you to resign. Not because I'm biased against men, or conservatives, but because your communication and teamwork skills are nonexistent.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDeamon on December 08, 2021, 04:01:12 PM
If you march around the company hallways talking about how women are less suited to be programmers, I'm going to ask you to resign.

Ah the google manifesto. Too bad that isn't what he actually claimed. His assertion was that women were less likely to tolerate the work conditions that male coders tended to tolerate.

Because frankly, those work conditions are generally not great.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on December 08, 2021, 04:20:06 PM
I never mentioned that dude. My hypothetical employee is saying something different than him, if that makes you feel better.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on December 09, 2021, 06:50:29 PM
And thus ends the jury deliberations. Guilty. On to sentencing.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Fenring on December 09, 2021, 11:39:18 PM
Just a tidbit from BLM you might find 'interesting':

https://blacklivesmatter.com/statement-regarding-the-ongoing-trial-of-jussie-smollett/

Quote
It’s not about a trial or a verdict decided in a white supremacist charade, it’s about how we treat our community when corrupt systems are working to devalue their lives.
[...]
In our commitment to abolition, we can never believe police, especially the Chicago Police Department (CPD) over Jussie Smollett, a Black man who has been courageously present, visible, and vocal in the struggle for Black freedom.
[...]
Black Lives Matter will continue to work towards the abolition of police and every unjust system.

In case there was any doubt about what the phrase "defund the police" is intended to mean. I find it ironic that BLM in this instance is actually doing precisely what Smollet did - trying to inflame race relations on a spurious narrative.

Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on December 09, 2021, 11:56:02 PM
Their statement isn't inflaming, it's a statement of fact. Those police have lied over and over. The fact that they turned out right this time is not an exoneration of the institution. That's the point.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on December 09, 2021, 11:58:41 PM
Quote
In case there was any doubt about what the phrase "defund the police" is intended to mean. I find it ironic that BLM in this instance is actually doing precisely what Smollet did - trying to inflame race relations on a spurious narrative.

See Wikipedia,

Quote
Black Lives Matter (BLM) is a decentralized political and social movement protesting against incidents of police brutality and all racially motivated violence against black people.[1][2][3][4][5] While there are specific organizations such as the Black Lives Matter Global Network that label themselves simply as "Black Lives Matter", the overall movement is a decentralized network of people and organizations with no formal hierarchy.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter

So the BLMGN who owns that website, isn't representative of the movement, it is one group who is using the name of the movement.

So you really shouldn't ready anything into what is on that site as to being representative of the BLM movement.

Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Fenring on December 10, 2021, 01:07:19 AM
So the BLMGN who owns that website, isn't representative of the movement, it is one group who is using the name of the movement.

So you really shouldn't ready anything into what is on that site as to being representative of the BLM movement.

I mean, I know that, and on one level you are right (trivially so), and on another level I think you're missing the forest for the trees. Granting that this is a side tangent I won't dwell on it and just posted as food for thought. But the No True Scotsman/shifting goalpost should certainly be clear to you as present in movements like these. As long as there is no central authority (which is usually the case in human affairs, especially grassroots ones) then any claim at all can be said to "not be representative" of "the movement". So basically no claim made by anyone can be held to account, since it's not 'the official' belief, since there is no official belief. So we can't say anything about anything under this principle. I assume you would find this as odious as I do if it was being made by groups you found troublesome, and their defenders making motte/bailey 'that's not what people really believe' arguments. I'm not precisely saying you're an apologist for BLM - although in this instance you literally are - but rather than one can go too far being fair to them rather than finally admitting that some things really mean what they sound like.

This is the problem with protest and political movements: you want a coalition, and to claim solidarity in numbers, but when critiques are leveled, everyone goes to ground and claims it was someone else's belief, not theirs. So to have your coalition you knowingly thumbs-up any statement made at all ostensibly on 'your side'. So for an example, in the trans movement (just to throw fuel into the fire) you will rarely see pro-trans activists taking each other to task for statements they disagree with. Rather, you'll see a lot of support for those on support of the same side, even if their beliefs are in fact different or even contradictory (which happens quite often). This works for them so long as this coalition creates a large public presence, but as I mentioned results in no one being accountable when problematic claims are made.

So I know that not literally every left-wing person wanted to literally abolish the police. But I was referring to this claim made that, 'no, we don't actually mean that, that's just a smear tactic.' Well I'm saying it's not a smear tactic, and that it was a real proposition most likely fueling the riots. I don't think the people occupying city blocks were protesting the precise budget levels of the police, preferring they be somewhat lower. And by the way, contrary to public opinion, most people are not particularly subtle, and are not either trained or at least required to come up with more complicated thoughts than "down with X!" Maybe they can, but why should they bother?

I'll just throw in as a bonus that I'm not even address what I think about the idea of abolishing the police such as they are now! My opinion on this might surprise you. But mostly I'm addressing the dismissal that this is what the maxim means, at least in many contexts.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on December 10, 2021, 03:22:56 AM
But the No True Scotsman/shifting goalpost should certainly be clear to you as present in movements like these.

No one is denying that there are some people who think certain things.  They just make up such an absurdly small part of the movement that it is bizarre to focus on them - they have no power or influence and never will have any power and influence.

You can survey what people who support BLM actually believe and what goals they support, and that belief and goal is small enough that it is lost in statistical noise.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Fenring on December 10, 2021, 10:00:39 AM
If the literal spokespeople for 'the movement' are part of this "statistical noise" then I'm not sure who does matter.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on December 10, 2021, 11:22:37 AM
There is an argument to be made that in some communities the police do more harm than good. Ignore that if you like.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on December 10, 2021, 11:57:28 AM
To explore, are there more unethical police, or more unethical people who identify with BLM?
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Fenring on December 10, 2021, 12:00:12 PM
There is an argument to be made that in some communities the police do more harm than good. Ignore that if you like.

I agree completely! But that's not my point.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Fenring on December 10, 2021, 12:03:18 PM
To explore, are there more unethical police, or more unethical people who identify with BLM?

Ok, so I'll use an apples to oranges comparison to show the sort of thing I mean, by analogy. Let's say that the Czars in Russia at the 'turn of the century' were typical monarchical oppressors, the system needed revamping, etc. Along comes a zealous movement to upend the current power structure. My question isn't "who is worse" or "yeah but isn't there a problem needing solving", my question is going to be "who are these people who claim to represent everyone but who may be just another set of closet aristocrats (to quote Frank Herbert)? When the new clique demands people bow to them, I want to know who they are and what they believe, because if they are fundamentally a destructive sect then I want nothing to do with them even if I agree completely with the things they're objecting to. The fact that we can commonly define a problem has nothing to do with whether a proper solution is being put forward.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on December 10, 2021, 01:17:13 PM
Interesting. Who do you think is claiming to represent everyone? Even our elected representatives can't claim that, which would include 7 billion people. Nobody seems to whinge about the NRA representing gun owners, or planned parenthood representing women. The public and the media couldn't deal with the occupy movement because they didn't follow robert's rules, appoint spokespeople, or publish a manifesto.

The same people who applaud the Sons of Liberty for violent rebellion suddenly have a change of heart now, but yes, it has come to the point where destruction is the only thing our society will pay attention to, and the shame doesn't belong to the people setting fire to dumpsters, the shame belongs to us that we didn't fix it before it got there.

We shouldn't be debating that things need fixing, but the cop apologists want to rinse their objects of worship in a shower of adulation, defending the shooting of handicapped people and tresspassers.

Why are people so concerned about the destructive elements in the revolutionary movement, but not concerned about militarized police who uniformly support destructive force?
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on December 10, 2021, 02:04:08 PM
If the literal spokespeople for 'the movement' are part of this "statistical noise" then I'm not sure who does matter.

They are 'self appointed', they aren't actual spokespeople for the movement.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on December 10, 2021, 04:48:40 PM
I assume we can consider the MAGA patriot party (https://news4sanantonio.com/news/local/maga-patriot-party-organizer-calls-it-personal-calling-to-defend-constitution) the official spokespeople for that movement also?

I mean, its right there in their name.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDeamon on December 10, 2021, 05:05:41 PM
And thus ends the jury deliberations. Guilty. On to sentencing.

So not only did he get a sandwich. He got a conviction too.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDeamon on December 10, 2021, 05:08:46 PM
Quote
In case there was any doubt about what the phrase "defund the police" is intended to mean. I find it ironic that BLM in this instance is actually doing precisely what Smollet did - trying to inflame race relations on a spurious narrative.

See Wikipedia,

Quote
Black Lives Matter (BLM) is a decentralized political and social movement protesting against incidents of police brutality and all racially motivated violence against black people.[1][2][3][4][5] While there are specific organizations such as the Black Lives Matter Global Network that label themselves simply as "Black Lives Matter", the overall movement is a decentralized network of people and organizations with no formal hierarchy.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter

So the BLMGN who owns that website, isn't representative of the movement, it is one group who is using the name of the movement.

So you really shouldn't ready anything into what is on that site as to being representative of the BLM movement.

Ah, so they get the benefit of the doubt. But if you're conservative, some random white supremacist says something, I'm somehow liable for their comments.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on December 10, 2021, 05:21:25 PM
Quote
In case there was any doubt about what the phrase "defund the police" is intended to mean. I find it ironic that BLM in this instance is actually doing precisely what Smollet did - trying to inflame race relations on a spurious narrative.

See Wikipedia,

Quote
Black Lives Matter (BLM) is a decentralized political and social movement protesting against incidents of police brutality and all racially motivated violence against black people.[1][2][3][4][5] While there are specific organizations such as the Black Lives Matter Global Network that label themselves simply as "Black Lives Matter", the overall movement is a decentralized network of people and organizations with no formal hierarchy.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter

So the BLMGN who owns that website, isn't representative of the movement, it is one group who is using the name of the movement.

So you really shouldn't ready anything into what is on that site as to being representative of the BLM movement.

Ah, so they get the benefit of the doubt. But if you're conservative, some random white supremacist says something, I'm somehow liable for their comments.

Are they? I don't remember Paul Ryan getting branded as in league with white supremacists. Or Marco Rubio. If you're Ben Shapiro or Tucker Carlson, yeah, you're liable.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on December 12, 2021, 06:05:44 PM
And thus ends the jury deliberations. Guilty. On to sentencing.

So not only did he get a sandwich. He got a conviction too.

Justice appears to about to be served. He could get up to three years in prison although it’s likely he’ll get less than a year - if he gets any at all.

Personally, I think he should get the max, all three years. He lied to police and investigators. He’s maintained that lie throughout the trial, committing perjury. He has shown zero remorse and taken no responsibility. Quite the opposite, in fact, as he intends to appeal. Had a couple of white guys been in the wrong place at the wrong time, Smollett would have let them burn to maintain his lies.

Then theres the impact on similar crimes that may actually happen. Evert one of these hate crime hoaxes, of which there are many, erodes the opportunity of victims to find justice. Smollett has made it easier to dismiss the crime as just another hoax. He has impacted all the other victims of race based crime.  It’s imperative to make the penalty sufficient to deter the next Smollett.

He deserves every day of a three year sentence.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Fenring on December 12, 2021, 06:47:07 PM
In this case it's weird, because a lot of the damage Smollet did involves abusing the public trust, which has perhaps many soft effects, one of which is no doubt increasing the general sense of alarm and tension. In the case of someone actually committing a crime against a singular victim, that person might well civilly sue for pain and suffering in addition to whatever criminal action the state brings against them. But in a case like this, is there precedent for a class action suit, to civilly sue someone like Smollet 'on behalf of the wounded public' hurt by the hoax? In other words, if there's a crime with no specific victim, but with many affected people, can they sue as a group?
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on December 13, 2021, 01:24:04 AM
Isn't it strange to be talking about holding an actor to account for the public trust, instead of police?
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Fenring on December 13, 2021, 10:16:56 AM
Isn't it strange to be talking about holding an actor to account for the public trust, instead of police?

Police get sued all the time...
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on December 13, 2021, 10:39:00 AM
sure police get sued all the time. Do they get more press than Jessie's false accusation? We should be talking about police overreach day after day after day after day, but somehow we're talking instead about how one sad actor did a *censored*ty thing.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Fenring on December 13, 2021, 10:54:50 AM
sure police get sued all the time. Do they get more press than Jessie's false accusation? We should be talking about police overreach day after day after day after day, but somehow we're talking instead about how one sad actor did a *censored*ty thing.

You're preaching to the choir. I would be happy for much more pushback against police misconduct. However it's a bit apples and oranges, because Jussie fits less into the "crimes that make people miserable" category, and more into the "people abusing media narrative to make all of humanity hate each other." Both are serious, but on the balance the latter is a more serious and immediate threat to democracy.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on December 13, 2021, 11:01:12 AM
sure police get sued all the time. Do they get more press than Jessie's false accusation? We should be talking about police overreach day after day after day after day, but somehow we're talking instead about how one sad actor did a *censored*ty thing.

You're preaching to the choir. I would be happy for much more pushback against police misconduct. However it's a bit apples and oranges, because Jussie fits less into the "crimes that make people miserable" category, and more into the "people abusing media narrative to make all of humanity hate each other." Both are serious, but on the balance the latter is a more serious and immediate threat to democracy.

That is a preposterous statement. A false accusation is a threat to DEMOCRACY? Have you lost the script? As opposed to appointed representatives of said democracy MURDERING people in the name of our society and getting away with it over and over and over?
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Fenring on December 13, 2021, 11:22:31 AM
That is a preposterous statement. A false accusation is a threat to DEMOCRACY? Have you lost the script? As opposed to appointed representatives of said democracy MURDERING people in the name of our society and getting away with it over and over and over?

So...you're saying you don't understand the difference between false narratives designed to make everyone hate each other, a brand new technological phenomenon since WWII, from typical corrupt misconduct that officials have been perpetrating for all of history? Not sure what you're trying to argue here, that since politicians do murder for money, we shouldn't be concerned about the fact that America is in a cold civil war right now? Like I said, apples to oranges.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on December 13, 2021, 11:44:09 AM
We already hate each other with good reason, and it isn't a particularly false narrative when you can substitute 99 real cases for the one fake one that got attention. There is a true narrative that a wide swath of our country relates to the proud boys and think that immigrants are subhuman.

If Smollet lit a match, I can go with that. It's bad that he did that. The problem we should be addressing is the dry tinder that allows it to matter.

If somebody made a false accusation against a Magic, The Gathering hate group, we'd all wrinkle our noses and say, What?

We should strive to make it impossible for a false accusation to gain any traction, whether it is sexual misconduct, racism, or other horrific societal traits. Rather than focusing on, "aha, these false accusations are the problem we must address!"
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on December 13, 2021, 11:48:24 AM
Oh, and maybe it isn't clear, that the appointed representatives I'm talking about are police, not politicians. That kill unarmed, mentally disabled people, that shoot people in their own backyards because they are holding a cell phone.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Fenring on December 13, 2021, 11:54:47 AM
We already hate each other with good reason, and it isn't a particularly false narrative when you can substitute 99 real cases for the one fake one that got attention. There is a true narrative that a wide swath of our country relates to the proud boys and think that immigrants are subhuman.

White supremacy is practically dead, has no political power, and is mostly a joke with a social media megaphone now. That you take it as seriously as you do is part of the media narrative hate that's been stirred up. The program had been a success - the left was winning the culture wars almost universally. And everyone politically speaking saw the writing on the wall after the Strom Thurmon business. So no, we don't hate each other with good reason. In fact there IS not good reason to hate each other. I would suggest you need to really reconsider matters in a broader perspective.

Quote
If Smollet lit a match, I can go with that. It's bad that he did that. The problem we should be addressing is the dry tinder that allows it to matter.

In order for your analogy to apply accurately, it's more like Smollet is the one removing concrete and replacing it with dry tinder, and is lighting a tiny symbolic match knowing it will cause others to bring in blow torches. He's not just lighting a flame inside a fire hazard, his goal is outright to make it as much of a fire hazard as he can. I find it odd you don't see that. He's part of the reason it's so flammable.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on December 13, 2021, 12:28:00 PM
If you think white supremacy is dead, I invite you to peruse the comment section on Breitbart and Newsmax. White supremacy isn't the KKK lighting a cross on fire, it's the guy who goes viral on youtube screaming at people to "talk American".

It's cops pulling over black people at higher rates than whites. It's all inequality, and it needs to be fixed, and that's not an overblown or false narrative cobbled up by some media conspiracy.

It's the guy who sat at the bar next to me two days ago who thought it was perfectly okay to talk about "ni**ers".
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: rightleft22 on December 13, 2021, 12:31:13 PM
Quote
White supremacy is practically dead, has no political power, and is mostly a joke
Is that statement made based on facts or is it a intuition? My understanding is that white supremist's have become more sophisticated in their methods.?

Where thier is Hate there is anger, where their is anger their is fear.

Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Fenring on December 13, 2021, 12:54:02 PM
It's cops pulling over black people at higher rates than whites. It's all inequality, and it needs to be fixed, and that's not an overblown or false narrative cobbled up by some media conspiracy.

You seem to overall be conflating discrimination (which exists broadly, around the world) with white supremacy, which is a very specific thing. I'm not personally amenable to play the redefine the dictionary game. Taking an instance of discrimination against a minority - which I share your distaste for - is not an example of white supremacy going strong. When the TSA was doing racial profiling to catch Islamic terrorists, putting aside how reasonable or effective this policy was, it was not a move for white supremacy, even though it was obviously discriminatory. You can't just use these interchangeably. You do know that the term 'white supremacy' includes the word "supremacy"? That implies more than just treating some people badly; if you believe your 'race' (or whatever) should be supreme that is a forward and overt political/social agenda. There are people who believe that in America, but not that many. And politically there is zero mainstream support for that. If you think there is I think you've been fed a crock.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: NobleHunter on December 13, 2021, 02:24:20 PM
I understand why you want to believe that but you are very mistaken. Just because very few people stand up and actually say "I think only white people should be in charge" or "I think non-white people should be relegated to an underclass" doesn't mean that white supremacy isn't an active force in politics.

If you believe the GOP is actually concerned about voter fraud or even the slightly more true goal of attempt to disenfranchise likely democratic voters, I have several bridges to sell you.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: rightleft22 on December 13, 2021, 02:37:26 PM
Came across a argument that in America the label racist can only be applied if the incident was intentional.   
Systemic racism doesn't exist because if it did it would be intentional and so out in the open for society to correct. 
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Fenring on December 13, 2021, 02:41:56 PM
Came across a argument that in America the label racist can only be applied if the incident was intentional.   
Systemic racism doesn't exist because if it did it would be intentional and so out in the open for society to correct.

Have you started changing definitions too, where systemic racism = white supremacy? By definition systemic racism does not allow for 'beliefs', such as wanting a particular color of people to win.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on December 13, 2021, 03:00:47 PM
Fenring,

Quote
That implies more than just treating some people badly; if you believe your 'race' (or whatever) should be supreme that is a forward and overt political/social agenda. There are people who believe that in America, but not that many.

What is your definition of 'not that many'?

Thinking a particular race is lazier and dumber than your race and shouldn't 'race mix' with your race seems a pretty reasonable approximation of white supremacy to me.  And those beliefs are held by 42% (lazier) and 26% (less intelligent), and 26% (would object to close family member marrying) by white Republicans about African Americans.  So I'd say at least 26% of white Republicans could be classified as white supremecist, and about 12% of white Democrats.

89% of Republican's are white.  So at minimum 23% of Republicans could be reasonably called white supremacist.  60% of Democrats are white, so at minimum about 7% of Democrat's could be reasonably called white supremacist.

Quote
The biggest yawning gap between Democrats and Republicans is on the issue of motivation and will power. The GSS asks whether African Americans are worse off economically “because most just don't have the motivation or will power to pull themselves up out of poverty?”

A majority — 55 percent — of white Republicans agreed with this statement, compared to 26 percent of white Democrats. That's the biggest gap since the question was first asked in 1977 — though the gap was similar (60-32) in 2010.

The survey also asks people to rate the races on how hard-working or lazy they are, which allows us to compare whether people rate some higher than others.

In this case, 42 percent of white Republicans rated African Americans as being lazier than whites, versus 24 percent of white Democrats. That 18-point gap is the second-biggest on record, behind 2010 (19 points).

The gap is again unprecedented when it comes to intelligence.

As with the previous question, the survey didn't ask people to compare blacks and whites directly, but rather to rate each race separately. In this case, 26 percent of white Republicans rated African Americans as less intelligent, compared to 18 percent of white Democrats. That eight-point gap is slightly bigger than in 2010 (seven points) and 2004 (six points).

It's a similar story on interracial marriage; 26 percent of white Republicans say they'd be opposed to a family member or close relative marrying a black person, versus 12 percent of white Democrats. That 14-point gap is tied for the largest with 2010.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/03/31/the-gap-between-republicans-and-democrats-views-of-african-americans-just-hit-a-new-high/
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on December 13, 2021, 04:25:26 PM
You don't have to hate every black person in order to be a white supremacist, you just have to believe that the vast majority are inferior to white people. And that white people should be in charge of all important things. This is ADL's definition.

Quote
White supremacy is a term used to characterize various belief systems central to which are one or more of the following key tenets: 1) whites should have dominance over people of other backgrounds, especially where they may co-exist; 2) whites should live by themselves in a whites-only society; 3) white people have their own "culture" that is superior to other cultures; 4) white people are genetically superior to other people. As a full-fledged ideology, white supremacy is far more encompassing than simple racism or bigotry. Most white supremacists today further believe that the white race is in danger of extinction due to a rising “flood” of non-whites, who are controlled and manipulated by Jews, and that imminent action is need to “save” the white race.

Please note the "one or more" part of this definition. They don't have to tick all the boxes. #3 is the most widespread, I believe. If you were talking about #2, yes this is pretty vanishingly small.

Tucker Carlson qualifies. So does everyone else fretting about the "dilution" of the racial makeup of the country. It's not a small group that is terrified about a minority of white people.

This casting of white supremacy isn't some new fad that I rightleft and I dreamed up on the spot.

Quote
Lest Baldwin be counted along with Frantz Fanon and Malcolm X as more radical “fringe” voices on the topic of white supremacy, the idea of white supremacy as a shared culture has been floated by many of the establishment voices of the civil-rights movement, including none other than Martin Luther King Jr. In his 1967 book, Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community?, which is itself concerned with hope and building interracial solidarity, King wrote that “the doctrine of white supremacy was imbedded in every textbook and preached in practically every pulpit. It became a structural part of the culture,” one that persisted to the present day.

“However much it is denied, however many excuses are made, the hard cold fact is that many white Americans oppose open housing because they unconsciously, and often consciously, feel that the Negro is innately inferior, impure, depraved and degenerate,” King wrote. “It is a contemporary expression of America’s long dalliance with racism and white supremacy.”
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: rightleft22 on December 13, 2021, 05:31:01 PM
Came across a argument that in America the label racist can only be applied if the incident was intentional.   
Systemic racism doesn't exist because if it did it would be intentional and so out in the open for society to correct.

Have you started changing definitions too, where systemic racism = white supremacy? By definition systemic racism does not allow for 'beliefs', such as wanting a particular color of people to win.

Sorry that was just a a-side
The debate involved a European and American approach to labeling a person racist.

   
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDeamon on December 13, 2021, 11:11:01 PM
Thinking a particular race is lazier and dumber than your race and shouldn't 'race mix' with your race seems a pretty reasonable approximation of white supremacy to me.  And those beliefs are held by 42% (lazier) and 26% (less intelligent), and 26% (would object to close family member marrying) by white Republicans about African Americans.  So I'd say at least 26% of white Republicans could be classified as white supremecist, and about 12% of white Democrats.

Slow down a moment on the 42% believing "they're lazier" being racist in the context you're trying to make it. Although it does seem the 26% grouping is being racist.

The question seems to give no clarification as to the basis for why they believe the other group is lazier.

I knew plenty of Native Americans who knew that thanks to affirmative action programs and other social safety nets specific to Native Americans, they didn't have to push very hard to get admitted to a good college/university. That makes them lazy, due to systemic reasons even. But it isn't because of anything inherent to their race, but rather, it is a consequence of cultures that have evolved in response to systems that have put into place to "help" them.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on December 14, 2021, 01:20:41 AM
Slow down a moment on the 42% believing "they're lazier" being racist in the context you're trying to make it. Although it does seem the 26% grouping is being racist.

I think you misunderstood what I wrote, I was suggesting that the union (hence the word 'and') of the 3 beliefs is likely racist.

Quote
Thinking a particular race is lazier and dumber than your race and shouldn't 'race mix' with your race seems a pretty reasonable approximation of white supremacy to me.

 So I was giving the benefit of the doubt to the 16% who believed the first, but not the second and the third.  I was just providing the numbers for the individual beliefs so that it was clear what they were.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on December 14, 2021, 01:40:24 AM
Quote
who believed the first, but not the second and the third. 

Meant to say who believed the first or second, but not who believed all 3.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on December 14, 2021, 05:00:56 PM
People always have "reasons" for their racist beliefs. Black people aren't inherently inferior, its their culture that is inferior. Like, the way they style their hair, wear their clothing, talk loud, etc. They're lazier because of all that sweet welfare they are getting, but someone cognitively not understanding that far more white people are collecting sweet welfare checks. And somehow they are lazier because of affirmative action than all the wealthy white kids that have everything handed to them by their parents, who can get them into the best schools with mediocre grades? Only government money makes you lazy, I guess.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Crunch on March 11, 2022, 08:27:03 AM
Quote
Smollett sentenced to 150 days in Jail. 30 months felony probation. $120k restitution. $25k fine.

Aaaand ….scene.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Fenring on March 11, 2022, 09:46:17 AM
Considering the fact that the judge told him that he had been committing perjury during the entire trial, and that additionally he made a ludicrous outburst after sentencing, it's a small wonder he got so little jail time.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on March 11, 2022, 10:17:26 AM
small wonder he got so little jail time.

I can't parse this odd phrasing
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Fenring on March 11, 2022, 01:05:16 PM
Oh I see the confusion, I meant to say it's somewhat wondrous that he got so little jail time. I actually said the reverse of that.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on March 11, 2022, 01:12:06 PM
Is it unusually light? I honestly have no idea what the baseline standard is for making a false report and the associated charges.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: Fenring on March 11, 2022, 01:15:23 PM
Is it unusually light? I honestly have no idea what the baseline standard is for making a false report and the associated charges.

1,000 counts of perjury would add to it, wouldn't you think? Plus the fact that he was attempting to frame some people for aggravated assault/hate crimes.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on March 11, 2022, 01:50:11 PM
Is it unusually light? I honestly have no idea what the baseline standard is for making a false report and the associated charges.

1,000 counts of perjury would add to it, wouldn't you think? Plus the fact that he was attempting to frame some people for aggravated assault/hate crimes.

Again, there are lots of people who lie through their teeth, they don't get charged individually for each lie. And who was being framed? The guys he hired? I'm not really feeling terrible for them.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on March 11, 2022, 02:57:52 PM
Is it unusually light? I honestly have no idea what the baseline standard is for making a false report and the associated charges.

1,000 counts of perjury would add to it, wouldn't you think? Plus the fact that he was attempting to frame some people for aggravated assault/hate crimes.

The charges were 6 counts of disorderly conduct - false reports of abuse, of which he was found guilty of 5.  Maximum penalty 6 months and since they arise from a single act would be concurrent and not consecutive.  Since he wasn't making accusations against a specific person, he probably can't be sentenced to the maximum (though haven't checked the guidance so not certain- usually there is guidance on this). So he will be getting half the statutory maximum for the class of charge and probably the max applicable sentence given that it wasn't a false report against a specific individual.

As to perjury, generally it would be a single count of perjury,

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1755-perjury-cases-special-problems-and-defenses-charging

Also he has to actually be charged with perjury to be sentenced for it, even if the judge believes he was committing perjury during his defense.  Perjury charges would be a separate case.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on March 11, 2022, 04:38:17 PM
A quick gander suggests that people can get 4-5 years sentences for successfully framing someone, attempts that landed their victims in jail or having to mount a vigorous defense. Smollett got 2.5, seems appropriate. I guess the people who wanted the book thrown at him should be grateful he didn't do the smart thing and plead guilty. He might not have had to serve any time.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on March 11, 2022, 10:47:22 PM
Oops misread, 150 days so 5 months, not 3 months.  So he recieved 83% of statutory maximum.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: ScottF on March 17, 2022, 12:43:23 PM
And just like that, he's out of jail. His attorneys said jail would not be good for his health and that apparently sufficed for the appeals committee.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: LetterRip on March 17, 2022, 01:10:25 PM
Release pending appeal is common for those who aren't violent offenders and who aren't a flight risk,

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3143
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: ScottF on March 17, 2022, 07:42:21 PM
Yeah I get it’s not super uncommon.

Honestly, my biggest concern is that Jussie's attacker is now back on the streets.
Title: Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
Post by: TheDrake on March 18, 2022, 03:44:32 PM
That's a lot of energy the right is wasting on one random guy making a false claim. I wonder if it is because they want to pretend that most of the black people attacked for their race are making the whole thing up.